Ron Paul is the only anti-war candidate we've got. [Archive]

View Full Version : Ron Paul is the only anti-war candidate we've got.

someguy

04-25-2011, 10:06 AM

zenekar

04-25-2011, 10:57 AM

someguy

04-25-2011, 11:15 AM

___

Talk is cheap! Ron Paul is full of contradictions. He is an advocate for the free market, unregulated economy that has created the economic disaster we're in with foreclosures, bank bailouts, etc. The wealthy getting wealthier, while working "middle class" folks are scraping by. Ron Paul would do away with Medicare, Planned Parenthood and other government (of, by, and for the people) programs that most sane societies have in place. Beware of the Ron Paul hype.

Im not sure what contradictions you're referring to, but as far as I know Ron Paul is always consistent with his message. As far as the free market being the cause of housing bubble, that could be debated.... What I will say is that Ron Paul was warning about the housing bubble for almost a decade before it burst. He is not in favor of corporations taking advantage of the people, that is for sure. And he would definitely never have given trillions to the banks in spite of the people.

theindependenteye

04-25-2011, 09:06 PM

someguy

04-25-2011, 09:30 PM

>>>He is not in favor of corporations taking advantage of the people, that is for sure.

I'm interested: what are his policies in relation to this? My general understanding of Libertarian policy is that regulation is fundamentally wrong-headed and that federal authority to regulate should be radically diminished. Am I mistaken in this, or does he see other means of preventing corporate power simply to flow into the vacuum left by a diminished government? Or that corporations will do the right thing, always, so long as market forces are allowed free rein. Certainly I've heard the case made that corporations so totally dominate the government than diminishing federal authority will actually help hold them in check, but to me that seems like blowin' really good weed — kinda like shooting yourself to avoid dying of cancer.

Could you address this question further?

Thanks—
Conrad
Sure! This is what Ron Paul says himself:

"Since the bailout bill passed, I have been frequently disturbed to hear “experts” wrongly blaming the free market for our recent economic problems and calling for more regulation. In fact, further regulation can only make things worse.
It is important to understand that regulators are not omniscient. It is not feasible for them to anticipate every possible thing that could go wrong with whatever industry or activity they are regulating. They are making their best guesses when formulating rules. It is often difficult for those being regulated to understand the many complex rules they are expected to follow. Very wealthy corporations hire attorneys who may discover a myriad of loopholes to exploit and render the spirit of the regulations null and void. For this reason, heavy regulation favors big business against those small businesses who cannot afford high-priced attorneys.

The other problem is the trust that people blindly put in regulations, and the moral hazard this creates. Too many people trust government regulators so completely that they abdicate their own common sense to these government bureaucrats. They trust that if something violates no law, it must be safe. How many scams have “It’s perfectly legal” as a hypnotic selling point, luring in the gullible?

Many people did not understand the financial house of cards that are derivatives, but since they were legal and promised a great return, people invested. It is much the same in any area rife with government involvement. Many feel that just because their children are getting good grades at a government school, they are getting a good education. After all, they are passing the government-mandated litmus test. But, this does not guarantee educational excellence. Neither is it always the case that a child who does NOT achieve good marks in school is going to be unsuccessful in life.

Is your drinking water safe, just because the government says it is? Is the internet going to magically become safer for your children if the government approves regulations on it? I would caution any parent against believing this would be the case. Nothing should take the place of your own common sense and due diligence.

These principles explain why the free market works so much better than a centrally planned economy. With central planning, everything shifts from one’s own judgment about safety, wisdom and relative benefits of a behavior, to the discretion of government bureaucrats. The question then becomes “what can I get away with,” and there will always be advantages for those who can afford lawyers to find the loopholes. The result then is that bad behavior, that would quickly fail under the free market, is propped up, protected and perpetuated, and sometimes good behavior is actually discouraged.

Regulation can actually benefit big business and corporate greed, while simultaneously killing small businesses that are the backbone of our now faltering economy. This is why I get so upset every time someone claims regulation can resolve the crisis that we are in. Rather, it will only exacerbate it."

Hope that little explanation helps you out Conrad.

theindependenteye

04-27-2011, 08:32 PM

>>>Hope that little explanation helps you out Conrad.
Thanks for the quote, but for me it just raises more questions.

His main points against regulation, as I understand it, are that (a) regulators aren't foolproof; (b) heavy regulation favors big business because they can afford tons of lawyers while small businessmen can't; (c) it induces us to trust the regulators rather than ourselves; and (d) the free market encourages us to take responsibility and therefore is a self-correcting mechanism for folly.

I'll grant you (a). First, they're human. Second, those agencies are often radically underfunded. Third, corporate lobbyists bring enormous pressure both thru Congress and thru the Executive. So, yes, that's a serious problem.

The second is a legitimate argument, and things should be modified to allow fairness. But somehow I don't see big business putting tons of money into *promoting* regulation in order to take advantage of it — quite the contrary, it seems. Small business labors under many other disadvantages that are brought about directly by the free market, so the problem is much deeper than the regulatory issue.

The third (the issue of misplaced trust) — well, no, given the first of these points, I don't place huge trust in the government. But I sure as hell don't trust what the automakers and drug companies etc. etc. etc. tell me, either. In the long run, I think that cars are safer, the air less polluted, food less contaminated, etc., as a result of government regulation, despite countless failures, than if industry had been left unchecked.

The fourth — individual responsibility and the healing power of the free market — is a nice idea, but no more proven than if I were to say, "Under Socialism, everyone will be healthy and happy and love one another." Turned out to be more complicated than it seemed.

How do I, even rallying a dozen or hundred friends & neighbors to the battlefield of pressure & publicity & boycotts, whatever, *personally* make sure that my water, my medicines, my food, my air, my schools, my car, the house I live in, etc., are safe or effective? If a company is spewing toxic fumes that will impact my life, do I stop'em by writing a nasty letter? Should we get rid of the police because some of them are corrupt and because crime goes on — form private militias to guard our neighborhoods or bust into the local bank to audit it?

Sorry, my worklist is too damned long as it is. I have to put my trust in the government for a lot of things, or else rely solely on the good graces of PG&E, BP, Exxon, Massey Energy, Monsanto, Phillip Morris, etc., and the possibility that bad publicity can overcome the millions they spend for feel-good self-promotion and force them to respond to something besides short-term profits.

Anyway, that's where I find this Libertarian position untenable. Its critique of big government is very much worth listening to, but its prescription seems to rely much too heavily on faith-healing. Clearly you disagree, but what is this faith based on?

Cheers--
Conrad

someguy

04-28-2011, 12:47 PM

Hey Conrad,

Thanks for the reply! You've brought up some good points here, and I believe they represent a large portion of liberal America, and Waccobb for that matter, so it's great that we can have this discussion here.

His main points against regulation, as I understand it, are that (a) regulators aren't foolproof; (b) heavy regulation favors big business because they can afford tons of lawyers while small businessmen can't; (c) it induces us to trust the regulators rather than ourselves; and (d) the free market encourages us to take responsibility and therefore is a self-correcting mechanism for folly.

I'll grant you (a). First, they're human. Second, those agencies are often radically underfunded. Third, corporate lobbyists bring enormous pressure both thru Congress and thru the Executive. So, yes, that's a serious problem.It seems we are mostly in agreement on point A. Not enough disagreement to get deep into that issue as far as I see it.

The second is a legitimate argument, and things should be modified to allow fairness. But somehow I don't see big business putting tons of money into *promoting* regulation in order to take advantage of it — quite the contrary, it seems. Small business labors under many other disadvantages that are brought about directly by the free market, so the problem is much deeper than the regulatory issue.As far as big business promoting regulation in order to take advantage of it, well, they do it all the time. Surely you haven't forgotten about the "healthcare" bill that the insurance companies basically wrote themselves, guaranteeing them millions of new customers? Or the Food Safety and Modernization Act that was backed by most major food processing corporations. How about the food labeling regulations that are supposedly there to protect consumers, but in all actuality mislead consumers in numerous ways that benefit food processors? For example, are you aware that the FDA allows foods to be labeled "trans fat free" when they actually do contain trans fats? Trans fats are like poison to our cells. Its clear to me that the food industry would rather have this kind of regulation in place, because it benefits them. The consumer gets a false sense of security from the label, and doesn't bother to read the ingredient list because they believe the FDA has taken care of them. Same goes for MSG, which can be added to foods that are labeled "no MSG added", as long as it's under the name "natural flavors", "spices" or "autolysed yeast extract".

The FDA has recently been going around harassing raw milk producers and retailers. They've been coming in with guns drawn (!!!), seizing their equipment, contaminating their milk with blue dye, and basically trying to scare them and run them out of business. This is all because the FDA claims that raw milk is unsafe.

Between 1990 and 2004, a CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest) report shows a much greater risk from consuming the following foods:

31,496 illnesses, 639 outbreaks from produce (38%)
16,280 illnesses, 541 outbreaks from poultry (20%)
13,220 illnesses, 467 outbreaks from beef (16%)
11,027 illnesses, 341 outbreaks from eggs (13%)
9,969 illnesses, 984 outbreaks from seafood (12%)

Do you see the FDA drawing their guns on spinach producers and seizing their products? Hell no. The fact is, the FDA is nothing more than a gang that supports the interests of the food processors and the pharmaceutical industry. The food processors don't want people drinking raw milk, because it detracts from the profits of corporate dairy while empowering local producers. the FDA has also harassed producers of walnuts and cherries to keep them from putting links to scientific studies that show health benefits from these foods on their websites. The food processors don't want people to eat whole unprocessed foods like walnuts. Meanwhile, theyre ok with junk foods like Cheerios and Lucky Charms claiming to be "heart healthy."

The third (the issue of misplaced trust) — well, no, given the first of these points, I don't place huge trust in the government. But I sure as hell don't trust what the automakers and drug companies etc. etc. etc. tell me, either. In the long run, I think that cars are safer, the air less polluted, food less contaminated, etc., as a result of government regulation, despite countless failures, than if industry had been left unchecked.I was listening to KPFA the other day and they were laying out why the housing bubble burst, and what caused it. The guest on the show was the regulator who broke the Lincoln Savings and Loan scandal. Anyways, he went on to explain how the governments regulators were not only allowing banks and lenders to package extremely high risk loans (called junk loans) and sell them on the stock market, but the regulators were giving them AAA ratings. That is the highest rating a commodity like this can have on the stock market making it worth much more money, much more sell-able, and almost guaranteed to be an awesome investment. And these things were called junk or garbage loans! It definitely wasn't a secret that they were actually a terrible investment. As you can see, the regulators were just as much to blame for causing the financial crisis as the corporate financial interests. Had they done their job and rated the loans fairly, no one would have bought them. I fail to see how giving these regulatory agencies more money would prevent this kind of thing.

You said you believe your food is less contaminated because of regulations.... I'm sorry but I don't think our food could be any more contaminated these days. GMO's, endocrine disruptors, neurotoxins, additives, preservatives, colorings.....and all of this is legal and supposedly safe, according to the regulators. That is the problem......people believe it's safe because the FDA says it's safe. But many of these things have been proven to be carcinogenic, to impact fertility, and even to cause obesity! People have no idea that MSG is used to make lab rats obese for experiments. They trust that it is safe because the FDA allows it.

The way I see it, with our current political system, industry is left unchecked.....and even worse, people don't realize it! Surely you're aware of the revolving door between industry, government, and lobbying firms. The government regulators are the exact same people as the industry people, who are the same exact people in the lobbying firms! I'm not sure I understand how that makes you feel safer about your food, water, etc. It seems like the kind of false sense of security I've been talking about. Do you really believe that someone who goes from working at Monsanto to working at the FDA or EPA is going to put in place regulations that limit Monsanto in any way? Or that someone who works at Mars, Inc. and then at the USDA is going to enact policies that improve our health?

The fourth — individual responsibility and the healing power of the free market — is a nice idea, but no more proven than if I were to say, "Under Socialism, everyone will be healthy and happy and love one another." Turned out to be more complicated than it seemed.

How do I, even rallying a dozen or hundred friends & neighbors to the battlefield of pressure & publicity & boycotts, whatever, *personally* make sure that my water, my medicines, my food, my air, my schools, my car, the house I live in, etc., are safe or effective? If a company is spewing toxic fumes that will impact my life, do I stop'em by writing a nasty letter? Should we get rid of the police because some of them are corrupt and because crime goes on — form private militias to guard our neighborhoods or bust into the local bank to audit it?

Sorry, my worklist is too damned long as it is. I have to put my trust in the government for a lot of things, or else rely solely on the good graces of PG&E, BP, Exxon, Massey Energy, Monsanto, Phillip Morris, etc., and the possibility that bad publicity can overcome the millions they spend for feel-good self-promotion and force them to respond to something besides short-term profits.Do you really believe that the products and services you've listed are in fact safe and effective right now? Is your tap water uncontaminated? I sure as hell would not drink that stuff! If you're talking about rivers and streams, just look at how hog farms dump tons of feces into rivers in the Midwest, or look at chemical fertilizer runoff into the Mississippi river. I don't see any government regulators coming to stop them.

Medicines? Surely you agree that the pharmaceutical industry is not to be trusted to create safe drugs, and that the FDA has turned a blind eye and approved drugs that they knew were dangerous. Let me ask you this: why would you ever ingest something that was made by someone you don't trust, even if it was approved by regulators (who have proven themselves untrustworthy themselves)? The same goes for foods. I don't trust Kraft or Pfizer or any of the others, and so I personally will not put their products into my body. Seems like common sense to me. Also, a lot of medicines are not as effective as they claim to be. There are a lot of natural medicines (nutrients, herbs, etc.) that are not promoted by big business that are even more effective and safer.

Food? Why not buy your foods from local people who you trust? Believe me, it is not that hard. Who is more likely to screw you, your neighbor or some government bureaucrat? Who is easier to hold accountable if you do get screwed? Who is more likely to consider your concerns? Whose farm can you visit if you want to see if everything meets your standards? Are you going to trust that unpronounceable chemicals are safe for your children to consume, because the regulators say so? By buying from local people, not only will it be better for your health and better for the local economy, it will also be better for the environment.

Air pollution? That's a tough one, because most people don't have the means to make choices that would reduce it. But the fact is that non-polluting sources of energy do exist, and could easily be implemented. The government refuses to even consider them. There's a lot of vague talk about "clean energy" which usually ends up meaning nuclear power and "clean" coal, whatever that means, or GMO biofuels that use tons of fossil fuels to produce, making the whole idea seem completely ridiculous. But the real solutions like geothermal energy are never discussed. It's easy to see why with the revolving door thing: the industries are the government! The fact remains, though, that with geothermal energy and electric cars, air pollution would practically be history.

Ok, schools? Speaking as someone who was in schools not that long ago, the quality of education is extremely, extremely, extremely poor these days. Doesn't seem like government intervention has helped much in that area......in fact, schools have become noticeably worse since my parents were in school. Kids are graduating from high school who can barely read and write! That is how far the standards have been lowered. And 30% of kids don't even graduate at all! Teachers have been caught changing standardized test scores to make more of their kids pass, so that they can comply with the government regulations. Why not take a more active role in your children's education, visiting schools to ensure that they meet your standards, or educating your children yourself? As parents, we are ultimately responsible for ensuring that our children are educated.

And no, I don't favor getting rid of the police. But don't you think it would be far better if the local communities had oversight over the police? Whenever a cop does something corrupt, they get cleared of all responsibility, and life goes on. That kind of power and immunity leads to even more abuse and corruption. What if the next time a cop shot some unarmed person, they were voted out of office by the community?

I could go on, but the point is that with freedom comes responsibility. Do you want to be responsible for your own health and well-being, that of your family, and that of your environment? To be honest, it sounds like you don't. And that's fine, if that's your choice. Just don't get upset when the regulators who were supposed to be looking out for you turn out to have worked for Dow Chemical in the past.

My personal position is that I do want to take the time to know what is safe and effective for myself and my family. It's too important to delegate that responsibility to someone else who I don't know, and who I can practically guarantee is not actually looking out for my interests. I'd rather educate myself and use my own common sense to decide who I can and can't trust. And that's exactly what Ron Paul is an advocate for: common sense, tolerance, and personal responsibility.

Have a great day!

Someguy

theindependenteye

04-29-2011, 02:03 PM

Dear Someguy—

Sorry I don't have time to respond in detail, but a couple of general things.

Your long litany of government incompetence and being in bed with corporate interests is totally familiar to me, and while I'd argue some of the particulars (e.g. causes of the financial crisis), I won't dispute the essential point. We seem to be in agreement, too, that corporate interests on a broad scale produce a monumental threat.

Where we disagree is that, as I understand you, you feel that the solution is (a) to get rid of government regulation, which will (b) force us all to wake up to the multiple terrors out there, and (c) educate ourselves, join together with neighbors and through collective pressures force these behemoths to heel.

I don't believe that would happen. It's the same quality of logic as "Just say No" — makes perfect sense, but it's just a guess. Remove all regulation (except, presumably, enforcement of contracts) and let what happens happen. Save corporations all the money they now have to buy Senators with, and maybe they'll pass those savings on to the consumer.

To me, "government" isn't one thing: it's an incredibly complex eco-system subject to all sorts of forces. It's like strategic alliances in 19th Century Europe — one day you're in bed with the nice guys, next day with the stinkers, depending on how the dynamics of the chessboard look on any given day — not much different than the conflicting negotiations between the monarchy, the nobility, the free cities, and the peasantry in early English history. Many conflicting dynamics. I don't accept specter of the government monolith, or the popular Left notion, which you seem to share, that it's TOTALLY bought and paid for.

>>>I could go on, but the point is that with freedom comes responsibility. Do you want to be responsible for your own health and well-being, that of your family, and that of your environment? To be honest, it sounds like you don't.

Sorry, but that's absurd. I'm almost pathologically responsible for the things I *can* affect. But for countless things that are too large, too well funded, too far away but have direct impact on the people I love, I need to do what I can to pull together an aggregation of collective power to effect change. Sometimes that's called a neighborhood association, sometimes it's called a government.

Like you, I think, I'm an anarchist at heart. But I haven't heard anything from the Libertarians that make me believe they actually know their way out of the swamp.

Peace & joy—
Conrad

someguy

04-29-2011, 03:28 PM

Where we disagree is that, as I understand you, you feel that the solution is (a) to get rid of government regulation, which will (b) force us all to wake up to the multiple terrors out there, and (c) educate ourselves, join together with neighbors and through collective pressures force these behemoths to heel.

I just wanted to clarify one of my personal viewpoints that are misrepresented here in your statement (well I guess its my fault really). I do not advocate zero government regulation, or anarchy. I do however think that the federal government should have much less power and that regulations should, for the most part, be on a much more local level. The state level is a good start, but I think an even more refined approach is necessary to protecting ourselves and our communities. And I think Ron Paul definitely agrees with me there. I would like to think that this concept would be more acceptable to the progressive community, and maybe it is.... Any thoughts Conrad?

Cheers!

Hotspring 44

04-29-2011, 04:53 PM

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="width:566.75pt;border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" width="756" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="width:566.75pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top" width="756"> https://www.ronpaul.com/2010-04-06/ron-paul-discusses-americas-moral-decline-economic-collapse/
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top"> https://www.ronpaul.com/2010-11-08/end-social-security-medicare-and-the-welfare-warfare-state/
“First, Congress needs to stop using payroll taxes for purposes not related to Social Security, which was a trick the Clinton administration used to claim balanced budgets. Second, Congress should eliminate unconstitutional spending – including unnecessary overseas commitments – and use the saved funds to help transition to a Social Security system that is completely voluntary.”...
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> My take on that:
In other words; either, privatize social security, or formulate a government intuition of “retirement” run by the government as in government banking the “voluntary” “social Security” “investment” money for the ones that did pay into SS.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top"> ...”At some point in the near future Congress must allow taxpayers to opt out of federal payroll taxes in exchange for never receiving Social Security benefits.”
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> You may think old age sucks now.... ....It will really suck if Ron Paul has it his way.
Just think; old people’s death camps on the outskirts of every neighborhood in America... ..Or the very likely possibility of their sons and daughters spending their retirement money or the tuition money for the grand children’s education on their elderly grand parents whom have little or no chance of employment anymore because the workforce of so many younger people has outpaced the elderly to inevitable, permanent, unemployed, status; so as to keep them sheltered and alive; which, BTW won’t happen for every elderly individual either; some won't have it so good.

Personally I think that the “cap” (the exemption beyond the current limit of income taxable specifically for SS) of SS tax should be raised to keep it solvent instead of essentially eliminating it which is what Ron Pau’s policy would in effect accomplish in the real world of the current economic situation the country is in now.

Remember the original “Free Market” in America included indentured servitude and even outright slavery.
The logical outcome of less or no tax is lower wages being paid by the “property owners” whom are the “bosses” IE “employers.
They will just produce more goods so they could pocket more money.
They will hire more workers; make it more competitive for the workers to keep their jobs, while lining their own pockets.
That is the essence of the “free-market” system; you know? Maybe you don’t “know” or just “trust” the rhetoric.
I have been around enough to have witnessed enough to not trust executives of “private” interests to have the interests of the general public anywhere near the top half of their agenda.

Today right now millions of people are dependant on Social Security, Medicare, and retirement.
Getting rid of something like those things overnight would be like taking a domestic animal and abandoning in a wild environment; in other words, cruel; that basically would be in essence a death sentence for many and banishment for the “survivors”.

I don't hear very much if any creativity in Ron Paul's utterances.
All I have heard so far is basically recycled, regurgitated, and somewhat repetitive right-wing rhetoric economically speaking, and yes, there is a mix of some so-called “liberal” (Libertarian {I suppose}) twists in what he says like for example being against the Patriot Act, being against the Iraq and Afghanistan “wars”, for Internet neutrality and against prosecuting wiki leaks founder.

Although I may agree with some of those points there are others that I think are fundamentally preposterous; such as what he seems to be saying about “free market” system as if it's going to change anything in a good way for the betterment for people who right now, today depend on things like social security and Medicare.

The “free market” is in essence a survival of the fittest and the most cunning scheme of “governing”.

I think Social Security and Medicare makes us morally a better country than would otherwise be without it, but it seems to me, Ron Paul's utterances are saying that social security and Medicare are “immoral”, because somehow it deprives younger working people of their so-called hard earned money by way of taxation for social security and Medicare for older people.

IMHO, A government of the people by the people is dependent on the people and the people are dependent on it because it is ultimately “the people”.
So by weakening the government of the people, you ultimately weaken the people along with it.

The reason I think people with lots of money should pay more taxes particularly in times of economic crisis is because they can without sacrificing life’s essentials.
The reason I think poor people should not have to pay more taxes is because they can’t”; they would be either unable to pay mortgage, rent, or sacrifice foods or other life’s essentials.

A lot of “hard working” people that “earned” all of their money because of hard work (which is mostly true) somehow believe that “all you have to do is work harder” ant you are not “”worthy” if you don’t have a job like they do but somehow many of those in that class have not had the experience of a disability or family tragedy that has wreaked their financial well being or gotten laid-off causing a lack of work (employment) in their field in their local area and also not having enough financial resources or assurance if they did move to a less depressed area for employment; not to mention the many that have mortgages that are under water and any one of those factors causing a horrible credit rating score that makes it even harder to move into many rental units that require credit checks in areas that have better employment opportunities.

Also back to Social Security, some people use their bodies to work like digging ditches and harvesting fruit and food processing and other physically demanding labor in their daily work that takes its toll on the body.
Not all those people have much of an education to fall back on in their elder years after their body wears out; they can no longer compete in the labor force.

So when they wear their body out by the time they're 55 or 65 years old; what happens to them, if there is no Social Security?
Do we just let them die poor, hungry, cold, and in the streets?
Then what do we do instead If the answer to that is no?... ...Institutionalize them Instead of letting them die cold, hungry, and in the streets?
Who would pay for that?
Wouldn't it be cruel to deprive them of dignity? Or is it okay because it would be a “natural”, “free” market, enterprise, system?... ...Hmmmm.

I think (Dr.) Ron Paul should keep delivering babies instead of economic policies.

Maybe there would be fewer abortions (which Ron Paul is adamantly against), if there was some sort of reasonable support system for the children that the mother would otherwise be required to bear without available Planned Parenthood or abortions.

I wonder how many people that are into “balancing the budget” would in practical terms be interested in financially supporting all of the children and the medical needs of the mother's who are too ill to handle a normal live birth (or C section for that matter); or keeping alive the many babies that would be required to be born that basically have the brainstem but with no brain on it?.. ...(A dramatic and maybe not so common occurrence but is still a reality that exists and costs someone a lot of money; Who pays for that in Ron Paul’s economic “plan”?).

I think that people that believe that a woman that is pregnant, must by law bear the child under virtually any circumstance (or a equally required assessed TAX for all to be obligated to pay); there should also be a requirement to financially support that child particularly if the mother does not live through the birthing that they if they had their way would require her to do “by law”. How come I don't hear anybody from the anti abortion (anti choice) crowd bringing up the issue of full financial support for the mothers or children in such and similar situations in those so-called “discussions” in with the political rhetoric?... ...I have a simple answer to that: It’s typical Republican (mostly but other “parties” are also like that too; some more than others) denial and hypocrisy hard at (so-called) “work”.

What about under aged pregnancies?... ...I'm talking about young teenagers, not somebody 17 1/2 years old or older...
... should the baby be gene tested so that the actual father, regardless of age should be required to pay child-support and if the father is under aged, shouldn't the father's family be equally financially responsible for that child as the under aged mother and her family?

The reason I'm bringing this up is because Ron Paul is adamantly against abortion.
It seems to me that so many people that claim to be adamantly against abortion are also adamantly against welfare, but what about the child's upbringing?

What about the young mother’s well-being and “freedom”?

What about child support?

What about government when it comes to enforcing any laws like that?
Do they still say no government?.. ...It seems to me they are saying just that.

All of you, “us”, need “less”, “smaller” (Federal) government, right?
Well, I don't think we're going to get more (freedom) for less, which is why I ultimately think some boisterous, loud, people are apparently are demanding; that they get more freedom with what they believe to be “less government”, but I'm not so sure that would work out that way; as a matter of fact, I'm sure it would not work out that way.

Yes, there are a lot of stupid, ridiculous, absurd government regulations many of them local; not just federal by the way that could just as well be done away with on the local level.

By throwing away the best things in our society like WIC, Planed Parenthood cancer screening, Social Security and Medicare instead of fixing the real problems that actually have contributed majorly to the perceived fiscal wreckage is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

But not a single one of the current politicians including Ron Paul from what I can tell were even willing to have discussed in the chambers of the house; single-payer health care and in doing so would have gotten rid of the pip-off, for-profit, health care insurance providers in the process; no instead, they (the majority that voted-in the current healthcare policy; both parties) have decided to through the tax code force us to pay for insurance to private insurance companies that are in it entirely for the profit motive not for the betterment of the country.

How in the hell is that possibly going to cost “us” “less”? Answer: it's not going to cost us less it's going to have the appearance (political spin) of less cost for the government on the books so they can claim they are better at balancing the budget.

If it's (“health care) going to be a “tax” (which it is at this point) shouldn't it be run by the government (of the people) and not by speculator, healthcare insurance executives whom are in it solely for the profit which is ultimately, if not already will morph into multinational corporations of sorts that are inherently secretive, who laugh and thumb their noses at any notion of transparency?

Are Ron Paul and his tea bagger friends into single-payer healthcare?.. ...Answer: F NO!

Does anyone realistically think that Ron Paul and his tea bagger friends have enough money to donate to enough of the food banks to feed all the poor people that are going to be homeless, out in the streets, begging for food etc if they have all the budget cuts they are “demanding”?

Or if they would be willing to pay a private agency, corporations, or any “private enterprise” to dispose of the corpses of the starved to death ex-social security recipients, “welfare” mothers, the unemployed, poor, and homeless and their dependent children; if all the “cuts” they want come to reality?

Would there be any such thing as minimum wage anymore?
The government of the people by the people need certain rules to be enforced that only a government with police and military powers can do.

Then is the age-old clash of Constitutional arguments between strict word-by-word constructionists and the living and evolving; IE: amendments and varying interpretations that are made by courts and legislation etc.

In the constitution the tax is not supposed to be used to promote or enforce any religion; but is supposed to be firstly; support a militia to defend the country from invasion; secondly, to maintain a special territory for government IE: what is now Washington D.C. and thirdly; to enforce the laws of the constitution.
All the other tax expenditures will be fought over far beyond our life span, no doubt about that!

Bottom line; I think Ron Paul is another radical among a slue of others in the field of the American political landscape. I wouldn’t vote for him.

someguy

04-29-2011, 07:57 PM

Hello again Hotspring 44,

I just posted this message previously under my wife's account. Sorry about that!

I want to point out some follies in your lengthy post, and offer some clarity for you and other readers of this thread. Frankly, I'm shocked that so many people share these same misconceptions of Ron Paul's policies as you do, but it's true. This might take a while so here we go!

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr style=""><td style="padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<table style="border-collapse: collapse;" class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr style=""><td style="padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse: collapse;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr style=""><td style="padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top">“First, Congress needs to stop using payroll taxes for purposes not related to Social Security, which was a trick the Clinton administration used to claim balanced budgets. Second, Congress should eliminate unconstitutional spending – including unnecessary overseas commitments – and use the saved funds to help transition to a Social Security system that is completely voluntary.”...
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> My take on that:
In other words; either, privatize social security, or formulate a government intuition of “retirement” run by the government as in government banking the “voluntary” “social Security” “investment” money for the ones that did pay into SS.
</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table style="border-collapse: collapse;" class="MsoNormalTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="padding: 0in 5.4pt;" valign="top"> ...”At some point in the near future Congress must allow taxpayers to opt out of federal payroll taxes in exchange for never receiving Social Security benefits.”
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> You may think old age sucks now.... ....It will really suck if Ron Paul has it his way.
Just think; old people’s death camps on the outskirts of every neighborhood in America... ..Or the very likely possibility of their sons and daughters spending their retirement money or the tuition money for the grand children’s education on their elderly grand parents whom have little or no chance of employment anymore because the workforce of so many younger people has outpaced the elderly to inevitable, permanent, unemployed, status; so as to keep them sheltered and alive; which, BTW won’t happen for every elderly individual either; some won't have it so good.

Personally I think that the “cap” (the exemption beyond the current limit of income taxable specifically for SS) of SS tax should be raised to keep it solvent instead of essentially eliminating it which is what Ron Pau’s policy would in effect accomplish in the real world of the current economic situation the country is in now.
First of all, one thing that needs to be understood about Ron Paul is that he does not want to be a dictator. He is a strict constitutionalist and therefore would have to get any idea such as this one above approved through the congress. I think what Ron Paul recognizes like most young people nowadays, is that SS will not be around for someone my age (25). He and I both find it absurd that I should be paying into a system that I will not benefit from. On the other hand, I see where people at your advanced age are coming from in this debate. You've paid into SS all your life, and hell if you shouldn't get what you paid for. And I think that is why Ron Paul is trying to provide a plan where young folk such as myself can opt out of the system if they so choose, while allowing people who have paid into SS to remain in. And when he says that those who opt out will not have to pay Federal Payroll taxes, he is indicating that SS will still be drawn from the government, not through privatization.

</td></tr></tbody></table>

Remember the original “Free Market” in America included indentured servitude and even outright slavery.
The logical outcome of less or no tax is lower wages being paid by the “property owners” whom are the “bosses” IE “employers.
They will just produce more goods so they could pocket more money.
They will hire more workers; make it more competitive for the workers to keep their jobs, while lining their own pockets.
That is the essence of the “free-market” system; you know? Maybe you don’t “know” or just “trust” the rhetoric.
I have been around enough to have witnessed enough to not trust executives of “private” interests to have the interests of the general public anywhere near the top half of their agenda. If the bosses are producing more goods, does that not mean more jobs? I mean not in every case, but in general it does..... Are you saying that it is better to have less jobs in the country because it makes the job market less competitive?? I think that is pretty backwards thinking personally. I, like you, do not trust executives of private interests, nor do I trust government as most of them are former executives of private interests and friends of executives of private interests. And often times, government intervention does nothing but benefit executives of private interests. That is why when you have a true free market, the people have the power to decide what companies to trust and which to not trust. When the government intervenes, we are told which companies to trust, like Monsanto, and B.P., you know...the bad ones...

Today right now millions of people are dependant on Social Security, Medicare, and retirement.
Getting rid of something like those things overnight would be like taking a domestic animal and abandoning in a wild environment; in other words, cruel; that basically would be in essence a death sentence for many and banishment for the “survivors”.
First of all, Ron Paul would not get rid of SS and Medicare overnight. These issues are not even his top priority for the nation. Rather he is more focused on ending our militarism, homeland security, and auditing the Federal Reserve. But he has said many times that even though he is not at all cool with big government welfare programs such as SS and Medicare, he would never just pull the rug out from people's feet that have been dependent on this system their entire lives.

Second, you need to realize that sooner or later both Medicare and SS will end, probably through bankruptcy. Our nation is 17 trillion dollars in debt, and it is definitely not because of the free market either. We haven't had a free market for a long time now. But regardless of that fact, these programs are on the fast track for certain doom.

I think Social Security and Medicare makes us morally a better country than would otherwise be without it, but it seems to me, Ron Paul's utterances are saying that social security and Medicare are “immoral”, because somehow it deprives younger working people of their so-called hard earned money by way of taxation for social security and Medicare for older people.What he means is that young people like myself are being robbed of our hard earned money to pay for a program that we will never benefit from (remember the bankruptcy issue).

IMHO, A government of the people by the people is dependent on the people and the people are dependent on it because it is ultimately “the people”.
So by weakening the government of the people, you ultimately weaken the people along with it. For some things we are dependent on the government, such as national defense. The constitution lays the role of government out quite clearly. We are dependent on the government to defend our lives, our liberty, and to enforce contracts.

The reason I think people with lots of money should pay more taxes particularly in times of economic crisis is because they can without sacrificing life’s essentials.
The reason I think poor people should not have to pay more taxes is because they can’t”; they would be either unable to pay mortgage, rent, or sacrifice foods or other life’s essentials. You make it sound as though Ron Paul wants to lower taxes for rich people and raise taxes on the poor. Not true. Ron Paul wants to lower everyone's taxes. In fact, he believes that no one should pay income taxes to the federal government. But just the other day on Stossel he said that he would tax the hell out of big corporations who screwed over this country and abused our system.

Also back to Social Security, some people use their bodies to work like digging ditches and harvesting fruit and food processing and other physically demanding labor in their daily work that takes its toll on the body.
Not all those people have much of an education to fall back on in their elder years after their body wears out; they can no longer compete in the labor force.

So when they wear their body out by the time they're 55 or 65 years old; what happens to them, if there is no Social Security?
Do we just let them die poor, hungry, cold, and in the streets?
Then what do we do instead If the answer to that is no?... ...Institutionalize them Instead of letting them die cold, hungry, and in the streets?
Who would pay for that?
Wouldn't it be cruel to deprive them of dignity? Or is it okay because it would be a “natural”, “free” market, enterprise, system?... ...Hmmmm.
I think if you were to pose this question to Ron Paul he would say that he used to work in a catholic hospital and that they never turned anyone away. They funded everything from charitable donations and that is what we as a society should do, give money to the needy through charitable organizations. Why do we need the government to get involved?

Maybe there would be fewer abortions (which Ron Paul is adamantly against), if there was some sort of reasonable support system for the children that the mother would otherwise be required to bear without available Planned Parenthood or abortions. Ron Paul is morally opposed to abortion, as well as drug use, or prostitution. But he would never ever federally mandate that any of those things be deemed illegal. As far as de-funding Planned Parenthood, he would do that if he could get the congress's approval, but not because of his moral dislike of abortion, but because that sort of federal funding is not within the constitution. If states wanted to fund planned parenthood, he would be fine with it. And if states wanted medical marijuana, he is totally cool with that. He may want to educate people of his beliefs and try to change their minds, but never would he enforce any type of federal law that overstepped the jurisdiction of the individual state. Isn't that cool?

I wonder how many people that are into “balancing the budget” would in practical terms be interested in financially supporting all of the children and the medical needs of the mother's who are too ill to handle a normal live birth (or C section for that matter); or keeping alive the many babies that would be required to be born that basically have the brainstem but with no brain on it?.. ...(A dramatic and maybe not so common occurrence but is still a reality that exists and costs someone a lot of money; Who pays for that in Ron Paul’s economic “plan”?).
That is a sad and unfortunate scenario that you just laid out. And just like I said before it would be left to the state's to decide the laws surrounding abortion and welfare.

I think that people that believe that a woman that is pregnant, must by law bear the child under virtually any circumstance (or a equally required assessed TAX for all to be obligated to pay); there should also be a requirement to financially support that child particularly if the mother does not live through the birthing that they if they had their way would require her to do “by law”.I don't think Ron Paul believes in that. This man is the ultimate champion of personal liberty. That is why he wants government extremely local so that these difficult situations can be dealt with more individually.

What about under aged pregnancies?... ...I'm talking about young teenagers, not somebody 17 1/2 years old or older...
... should the baby be gene tested so that the actual father, regardless of age should be required to pay child-support and if the father is under aged, shouldn't the father's family be equally financially responsible for that child as the under aged mother and her family?

The reason I'm bringing this up is because Ron Paul is adamantly against abortion.
It seems to me that so many people that claim to be adamantly against abortion are also adamantly against welfare, but what about the child's upbringing?

What about the young mother’s well-being and “freedom”?

What about child support?

What about government when it comes to enforcing any laws like that?
Do they still say no government?.. ...It seems to me they are saying just thatRon Paul is saying local government not federal.

All of you, “us”, need “less”, “smaller” (Federal) government, right?
Well, I don't think we're going to get more (freedom) for less, which is why I ultimately think some boisterous, loud, people are apparently are demanding; that they get more freedom with what they believe to be “less government”, but I'm not so sure that would work out that way; as a matter of fact, I'm sure it would not work out that way.

Yes, there are a lot of stupid, ridiculous, absurd government regulations many of them local; not just federal by the way that could just as well be done away with on the local level.

By throwing away the best things in our society like WIC, Planed Parenthood cancer screening, Social Security and Medicare instead of fixing the real problems that actually have contributed majorly to the perceived fiscal wreckage is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.You think WIC is one of the best things in our society? The foods those mothers are allowed to buy are super unhealthy with a few minor exceptions. And again, I think you need to bear in mind Ron Paul's priorities for fixing this fiscal wreckage. First and foremost, end the wars, bring our troops home from all over the world, close down the 700+ military installations across the globe, and save trillions that way alone. Then, take down the federal reserve which is devaluing our dollar through out of control printing of money. Then cut federal programs that impact the poor and needy the least. Ron Paul is very sympathetic to those dependent on the welfare system, as he knows its not their fault, it is the systems fault that made them this way.

But not a single one of the current politicians including Ron Paul from what I can tell were even willing to have discussed in the chambers of the house; single-payer health care and in doing so would have gotten rid of the pip-off, for-profit, health care insurance providers in the process; no instead, they (the majority that voted-in the current healthcare policy; both parties) have decided to through the tax code force us to pay for insurance to private insurance companies that are in it entirely for the profit motive not for the betterment of the country. Ron Paul did not vote for Obamacare policy like the democrats and others. That bill is the ultimate example of government in bed with corporations. And he does not advocate a government run healthcare system either. You know, we're broke, can't afford it, regardless of what Michael Moore says....

When you advocate single-payer, what do you say to people like me, who don't want to be reliant on the conventional medical system that is based on many outright frauds and scams? Why should I have to pay with my taxes for a healthcare system that I'm basically not going to use?

Does anyone realistically think that Ron Paul and his tea bagger friends have enough money to donate to enough of the food banks to feed all the poor people that are going to be homeless, out in the streets, begging for food etc if they have all the budget cuts they are “demanding”? Do you know what budget cuts he is demanding??? Again, Ron Paul is not for taking away people's welfare who are dependent on it right now.

Or if they would be willing to pay a private agency, corporations, or any “private enterprise” to dispose of the corpses of the starved to death ex-social security recipients, “welfare” mothers, the unemployed, poor, and homeless and their dependent children; if all the “cuts” they want come to reality? You are misconstruing the situation entirely, and Ive explained it above pretty well. Those who are needing SS could opt in still, right?

Bottom line; I think Ron Paul is another radical among a slue of others in the field of the American political landscape. I wouldn’t vote for him. Thanks for your opinion Hotspring! I hope I clarified some stuff for you and if you'd like to discuss this more feel free. Ron Paul and a bunch of devastated middle-easterners could really use your vote. :Yinyangv:

-Someguy

Hotspring 44

05-19-2011, 12:02 AM

Hi someguy.
I have been busy with several pending things lately and I wanted to respond to your response point to point.
So here it is what I have come up with for now.

BTW this is going to have to be in 2 parts because apparently it is too long for it to be allowed as one reply.
So part 1:
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">
First of all, one thing that needs to be understood about Ron Paul is that he does not want to be a dictator. He is a strict constitutionalist and therefore would have to get any idea such as this one above approved through the congress...
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> I never said that Ron Paul wanted to be a dictator. If you think I did say something like that, you misinterpreted what I said.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">
...I think what Ron Paul recognizes like most young people nowadays, is that SS will not be around for someone my age (25).
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> Actually, it would be if Congress, 1- pays back with interest what they looted from it in the last 30 (https://jimhightower.com/sites/jimhightower.civicactions.net/files/7-19_r_show.mp3) years and to stop looting it, &; 2- the president signs a bill that is voted in by the house and congress,, a bill to raise the cap on the maximum taxable income specifically for Social Security like I stated in my previous post. What about that which you do not understand?
Or is it just that you would like to have more cash out of your paycheck now and you think you'll never get old sick or injured? Or that somehow some private for-profit insurance situation will actually pay you off when you are in need?

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">
...He and I both find it absurd that I should be paying into a system that I will not benefit from...
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> One of two things; either you are really and you don't expect to ever need it, in which case, my response to that is; most people's houses don't burn down, but I think they still need the fire department, for example. But those things would not exist in a usable form if we didn't pay taxes, specifically allocated for such public safety nets.

I think you're making, mostly incorrect assumptions in regards to Social Security.
However, there are people like Ron Paul; maybe not exactly like him, but they agree on not wanting to pay any taxes for what they perceive as anybody else's benefit other than their own personal “foreseeable” benefit.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">
...On the other hand, I see where people at your advanced age are coming from in this debate...
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> I've got news for you, the next 35 years of your life is going go by a lot faster than you think it will.
Also, you don't know what the future holds for you, something unforeseen could happen, whereas you may become disabled, for one reason or another and not be able to work; hopefully not. But it's still a very real possibility.
It does happen to some of us, unfortunately.
When I was young I had similar attitudes and thought I was virtually invincible; that I wasn't injured (at that point), and I didn't have arthritis like my mother or had any heart conditions or strokes like my father, nor did I think I was going to, have any work-related injuries from the work I was doing (which I do now), etc. anyway, many of us don't necessarily fully comprehend the realities when we are young, healthy, and strong.
The real world experiences for many are much, much different than that which we are so sure of when we are younger and less experienced.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">
...You've paid into SS all your life, and hell if you shouldn't get what you paid for. And I think that is why Ron Paul is trying to provide a plan where young folk such as myself can opt out of the system if they so choose, while allowing people who have paid into SS to remain in...
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> In theory that sounds good when you're young or if you're rich and don't want to spend any tax money on anything that does not appear to directly benefit you personally.
In the short-term as far as Social Security is concerned it's not generally supposed to be a short-term investment, but in the long-term a lot of people benefit from it and should continue to benefit from it well beyond our lifespan inclining people your age.
But in practice, if you get severely injured from a car wreck, diagnosed with cancer or something like that and you have “opted out”, should you then be just allowed to starve or die? I for one don't think so.

Maybe it's just that you're young and you still feel invincible and haven't had first-hand experience like some of us have with ourselves or in our family.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="width:572.8pt;border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" width="764" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes; height:24.9pt"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;height:24.9pt" valign="top">
...And when he says that those who opt out will not have to pay Federal Payroll taxes, he is indicating that SS will still be drawn from the government, not through privatization...
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> In that scenario, that is a moot point. Because basically the plan as stated by the anti-Social Security crowd is that it is to be completely abolished at some point anyway.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">
If the bosses are producing more goods, does that not mean more jobs? I mean not in every case, but in general it does.....
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> Not necessarily... ..One example is modernization of production; as example, machines do most of the labor.
So producing more goods does not necessarily mean a substantive amount of “more jobs”. Even if there are new machines and new products, which one would assume that there is more products being produced; there may be a few more laborers to operate those machines and ship those goods, but the overall amount of new skilled labor in regards to operating modernized means of production may actually reduce the amount of actual available jobs; I think, history proves that point.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">
Are you saying that it is better to have less jobs in the country because it makes the job market less competitive??...
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> NO. You missed my point.
To clarify: what I meant was; the big bosses (I admit I am generalizing here I'm talking about the top 2 to 15% that have 40 or more percent (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woIkIph5xcU) of the country's total wealth (https://www.lcurve.org/)) would produce more products in actual quantity to meet demand, but would in essence hire fewer workers, compared to the quantity (in other words it would take fewer workers to units produced as a ratio).

Even though in some cases there may be more workers they will be working, producing more and being paid less, because there will always be somebody that is presently unemployed to take their place if they don't please the boss. That's essentially what I meant.
It is also my understanding (I may be incorrect about it) that Ron Paul and his ilk are against the national minimum wage standard law.
That's why I made that statement in my previous reply in the first place.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="width:6.15in;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top" width="590">
...I think that is pretty backwards thinking personally.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> Forwards, backwards, neutral, either way, that's not what I said or meant. Hopefully what I attempted to clarify above gives more light on what I meant in the first place.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">
...I, like you, do not trust executives of private interests, nor do I trust government as most of them are former executives of private interests and friends of executives of private interests.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> Then who are the nonexecutive “employers” going to be?... Who has the money to pay all the workers?
What exactly are the workers going to get paid with considering that 85 or more percent of citizens in this country only possess not much over 50% of the wealth? And I am not even counting the multinational or offshore corporations and other entities like China, for example as far as every “dollar” is concerned in the 50% equation. So, actually it's even far less than just over 50% of all dollars available within the country as investment and or working dollars which 85% of people have as wealth in the form of monetary dollar power in the first place.

My biggest complaint isn't necessarily executives per se. Rather it's the stranglehold some corporate executives (who may actually be stooges for certain entities, by way of design, whom we don't even know which is what I think the current situation has evolved to) that, have some sort of exclusive relationships with key government officials, and how they use Corporation money and resources to influence policy instead of spending their own personal money, voice, and, resources; on election campaigns and also the likelihood of ‘hidden’ foreign entities being involved with our election process. Because some of them are (no doubt in my mind) foreign entities they couldn't wouldn't and don't even show face!

In many cases, executives are just as important as anybody else in the workforce because they are an integral part of the workforce that supports the economy as a whole system.
But I don't want them making all the decisions for everybody because no individual or small, unelected, unaccountable, person and or corporation or group of people should have such absolute power.
Furthermore that's why there is a constitution, bill of rights and social safety nets which exist in the way of government-backed loans, grants, land-use allocations etc. there is a lot more to it than just Medicare, social security, and “welfare”.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">
......And often times, government intervention does nothing but benefit executives of private interests. That is why when you have a true free market the people have the power to decide what companies to trust and which to not trust...
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> What is the proof of that?
At this point in time, “the people” in general don't have enough clout as far as wealth is concerned compared to the corporate interests. In a monetary system of “free-market” as you're calling it money and wealth is the ultimate power. Unfortunately the ultimate power in that game most certainly does not and would not be in the hands of “we the people” but rather in the hands of the extremely rich, wealthy, and powerful corporate.
It seems to me that the term “true free market” needs to be defined more specifically, for me to understand what you mean by that.
In my mind right now, the term “true” “free market” is just another buzz-term, which at this point in time ended up being a corporate sponsored situation (albeit may be stolen. That's another issue) that has been used to intentionally sidetracks the real issues from the grasp of the minds of us the people and instead just ends being another monkey wrench in the gears of both social and scientific advancement of which we desperately need.

I have already explained in my previous post what I think “true free market” is; I think it would end up being survival of the fittest and most cunning and essentially at some point in time (I think sooner than later) would ultimately feed on greed, and would also feed prejudice and highly localized syndicate mafia like practices, and has the potential for “legalized” forms of many different kinds of what would now be considered illegal discrimination practices for either age, sex, religious belief, or almost anything else the “local” (“government”) people didn't want in their town. In other words, to hell with civil rights!... ...etc.

And sometimes, more often than not in some cases such as gasoline from greedy oil companies or electricity from nuclear power plants, affordable clothing from overseas sweatshops, affordable food; not everybody can afford, or has access to perfectly untainted products such as organic, local food etc. it's not a matter of getting something from someone or a company in which you “trust”, because when somebody, company or corporation has all of the food or all of the gasoline or all of the resources, available to you in your “local” area and you need any one of those essential resources to survive; it is not a matter of “trust” anymore. It's a matter of survival, isn't it?

If the masses hire or vote for what in essence is a “snake oil salesman”, to represent anything including a “free market”; it's still a snake oil salesman, isn't it?

Judging by what I've heard from Ron Paul and the tea baggers: I think it could easily end up being the same old crap of constituents either being misrepresented or out right unrepresented by the politicians only without the social safety nets.
That may look good on paper to some executives within the government branches, some politicians and their, well-to-do, unaffected constituents, but for the rest of us, we are more likely going to be screwed repeatedly, only harder than we are being screwed now!

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">
..... When the government intervenes, we are told which companies to trust, like Monsanto, and B.P., you know...the bad ones...
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> I think your definition of “the government“ [I]”intervening” here is different than what my definition is.
I think what you seem to be describing is inside out from the way I see it.
I think that the gigantic corporate interests have intervened in the government. I think you and I may see the same thing from opposite views of perspective.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">
...First of all, Ron Paul would not get rid of SS and Medicare overnight. These issues are not even his top priority for the nation...
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> But they are still on the axe list aren't they?
Medicare and Social Security could easily be put on the front of the “priority” list at any time. Don't kid yourself Medicare is a “priority” for cuts, it is on the “top priority” list because of its high cost.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">
...Rather he is more focused on ending our militarism, homeland security, and auditing the Federal Reserve. But he has said many times that even though he is not at all cool with big government welfare programs such as SS and Medicare, he would never just pull the rug out from people's feet that have been dependent on this system their entire lives.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> And then I ask; what would be put in place of that system for the people that are or would be about to be dependent on that system?... ...What I mean is, if it's going to end; somebody's going to get chopped out of the deal.
So what would be in place of it?
What about people that paid into it for half of their lives? Would they just get some sort of a refund?
If so would that refund have anywhere near the same amount of buying power as the money they paid into it at the time they receive it as it was worth when they paid it?

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">

Second, you need to realize that sooner or later both Medicare and SS will end, probably through bankruptcy. Our nation is 17 trillion dollars in debt, and it is definitely not because of the free market either. We haven't had a free market for a long time now. But regardless of that fact, these programs are on the fast track for certain doom.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> Well yes, if we don't do something to remedy the actual problems with those systems such as the private for-profit so-called health care insurance industry and not raising the cap on Social Security, (FICA); also we have not taxed the ultra rich like we did when those systems were solvent in excess.
If we had done so to this day, we wouldn't be in such a financial crisis in the first place. I'm not saying there would not be a financial crisis at all. I'm just saying it would not be as gigantic as it is now; at least as far Social Security is concerned anyway.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">
...What he means is that young people like myself are being robbed of our hard earned money to pay for a program that we will never benefit from (remember the bankruptcy issue).
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> Snake oil salesman like tactic. He's playing on fear; and/or he's against taxes which we need to change the structure of as I have mentioned to keep SS solvent.

Like I said; raise the “cap” (on FICA); not the percent rate; the cap. Do you understand what that means? Raise it to $200,000, $300,000, or maybe even $500,000 instead of where it's at now; and also maybe even; consider a (FICA) tax on income for the self-employed that pocket above a certain amount, as well as them also being eligible for Social Security disability and/or retirement benefits.
Then there would not be an insolvency problem with social security.
Then when you get old, tired, and decrepit, you too will have a Social Security disability or preferably Social Security retirement benefit, which would at least be enough for you (presumably) not to be homeless, starve or worse, particularly if any of your “investments” or savings doesn’t pan out.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">

For some things we are dependent on the government, such as national defense. The constitution lays the role of government out quite clearly. We are dependent on the government to defend our lives, our liberty, and to enforce contracts.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> During the original draft of the Constitution slavery and the actual ownership of human beings was essentially considered within the rules as under that which would be considered a contractual agreement between slave owners.
That was a form of “free-market” enterprise where the government protected and enforced terms of certain “contracts”.

Fortunately the Constitution has been amended since then and there is no longer that form of slavery.
Besides, that, I think that Social Security could be construed as a contract, wouldn't you say?... A contract in which those that actually do the work and pay the tax actually become eligible to receive the benefit.

I'm thinking that Social Security is a contract that should be fulfilled for you not just old, decrepit, and retired people who exist now.
I do not quite understand why you don't seem to consider Social Security as a “contract”.
Were you just referring to private “free-market” “contracts”?
I guess some would like to “opt out” of the Social Security “contract”, but that may be breaching such a contract with other people that don't want to “opt out” who actually paid for and want to keep the contract, allowing anybody to “opt out “may actually, cause it to become insolvent where it otherwise would actually be solvent.

Hotspring 44

05-19-2011, 12:04 AM

Hi someguy.

And, part 2:
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">
...I think if you were to pose this question to Ron Paul he would say that he used to work in a catholic hospital and that they never turned anyone away. They funded everything from charitable donations and that is what we as a society should do, give money to the needy through charitable organizations. Why do we need the government to get involved?
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> ...

Why do we need the government to get involved?
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"><td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> 1- Because the world isn't idyllic.

2- Because like it or not, there still is a lot of discrimination, and there would be a denial of service in some places for certain so-called underclass.
For example, I remember during the 1980s when the AIDS epidemic was happening at a time when we did not really understand where it was coming from or what was causing it.
People were literally refused service because it was believed that they were immoral because they were believed to be either homosexual or hypodermic needle using drug abusers. Many AIDS victims fled to New York, and California, because other states, religious-based hospitals literally booted them out the door or treated them with substandard care and often times denied access within certain hospitals from their loved ones having any visitation rights for any say-so whatsoever regarding their treatment in those hospitals some of the ways some of them were treated in those hospitals amounted to psychological and mental torture, if not actual persecution and some sort of imposed punishment.

3- I personally do not want to have to depend upon a religious organization that may actually have core beliefs that go against what I believe making medical and/or crucial decisions for me unless I knowledgeably and willfully otherwise gave them specific permission to. Nor do I think they should have the option to boot me out the door.
If and/or when I need hospitalization I do not want to be refused service because of some prejudicial morality issue, which may or may not even be true in the first place or refused service because I am not a member of some sort of approved segment of society or live within a certain distance from a region of accepted coverage and therefore be discriminated against based on my geographical home area.

4- , because I believe science-based technology has been paid for in large part by the public at large with our tax money in the first place, including those of which the Catholic church (and others) run hospital organizations utilize. Therefore it is my belief that in a way because our tax money paid for much of the science and discoveries that it is like a contract with the general public and tax money (constitutionally speaking) is not supposed to be used to promote any religion. Religious organizations regardless of how well-intentioned their “services” May appear on the outside to actually be; they still have their own brand of prejudice.

5- I am not so sure they “never turned anybody away” that's just what he (Ron Paul) apparently said. Maybe Ron Paul does not even know about denial of service where he worked, but it could've happened without his knowledge of it.
Anyway, I have heard of other places that take donations that actually do discriminate and do turn people away. I think the government is better at equality in regards to that then any orthodox religious organization could are at this point in time.
.

6- I think that the majority of hospitals and clinics are in large part built and or supported in one way or another with taxpayer money, tax exempt status, special real estate deals etc. and therefore have some responsibility to serve the public at large.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">

Ron Paul is morally opposed to abortion, as well as drug use, or prostitution. But he would never ever federally mandate that any of those things be deemed illegal. As far as de-funding Planned Parenthood, he would do that if he could get the congress's approval, but not because of his moral dislike of abortion, but because that sort of federal funding is not within the constitution. If states wanted to fund planned parenthood, he would be fine with it. And if states wanted medical marijuana, he is totally cool with that. He may want to educate people of his beliefs and try to change their minds, but never would he enforce any type of federal law that overstepped the jurisdiction of the individual state. Isn't that cool?
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> What about recreational marijuana, and other recreational drug use?
Would there still be a federal DEA if Ron Paul could change things? Answer: of course there would be because the president does not have the ultimate power without other branches of government supporting any such changes.
As far as Ron Paul's opinion of what the Constitution mandates as far as federal taxation and spending is concerned; just go back to what I said before in my previous post; people in this country will be arguing over the constitutionality of collecting taxes and spending money well beyond either of our lifespan no mater what or who is elected Pres..

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes; height:19.35pt"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;height:19.35pt" valign="top">
...That is a sad and unfortunate scenario that you just laid out. And just like I said before it would be left to the state's to decide the laws surrounding abortion and welfare.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> What about the part of the Fifth Amendment, specifically;
<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="width:620.75pt;border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" width="828" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="width:620.75pt;padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top" width="828"> ...nor be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation?
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> The states have same constitutional obligations.
Where do we as a nation and within a state draw the line between deprivation of life and natural cause of death?
Would it then be possible for one state to say it’s legal to have an abortion and in another state to say it's a felony to have an abortion?...
...Then if one state says it's legal and the other state says it's a felony and a pregnant woman crosses the state line to have an abortion, could the state where it's a felony or capital offense to have an abortion extradite her or prosecute any of the doctors or nurses that were involved with said abortion if they happen to travel in that state, where the woman that got the abortion came from or any other state where it may also be felony to have or perform an abortion? I suppose one could argue either way on those questions.... ...Where does “liberty” stand in such potential cases?

Also, what if that (hypothetical) woman that had the (hypothetical) abortion in the (hypothetical) state where it was legal never goes back to the state where she came from did end up going to another state where it was also a felony to have an abortion, even though she may have never been there before; could simply going over the state line, cause her to become “legally defined” as a “murderer” in one state and merely a medical patient in the other?
I ask once again, where is liberty in such a case?

Sometimes those states rights arguments fall short without some sort of federal policy enacted by Congress; clearly, the issues surrounding abortion are one of them.

As far as funding goes I'm willing to listen to the states rights arguments. But what I foresee the possibility of happening is that because one state doesn't fund something other states may end up getting dumped upon by indigents seeking refuge.
That's why I think there should be certain federal funding as I mentioned before, during the 1980s at the beginning of the understanding of the AIDS crisis in the USA, for example; California and New York having expensive to treat AIDS patients essentially dumped upon them from so-called “morality based” and “poor” states; in large part because Pres. Ronald Reagan at the time was unwilling to fund AIDS research.
Many of us that were around at the time believe Ronald Reagan's decision was based more on “morality” and not based on medical necessity or the need to scientifically discover the actual cause.
Because of the so-called morality issue involved with that decision many people believe that unnecessary spreading of the disease was one of the results. That “belief” is not provable, but what is obviously provable and agreed upon is that because of the lack of funding for the research the things that we know about it now could have been known years sooner.

Then there is the whole Electoral College issue.
What if some states make it so miserable for anybody to live there, but the ultra rich businessmen keep buying up property in certain key political states and make life absolutely miserable for anybody (who can vote) that are not upper-class income to the point where because of the electoral college; they end up controlling the federal laws, by way of being obstructionist within the House of Representatives and Congress? Sound familiar?
Maybe I'm getting sidetracked here, so I'll stop with that one and go to the next.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">
...I don't think Ron Paul believes in that. This man is the ultimate champion of personal liberty. That is why he wants government extremely local so that these difficult situations can be dealt with more individually.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> The problem with “extremely local government” is vigilantism, with extreme prejudice that could and would in some places be adjudicated (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/adjudicated) by the “locals”.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">

Ron Paul is saying local government not federal.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> Once again I am saying that the world is not idyllic.
Some local governments in the not too distant past have been extremely prejudicial and discriminatory to the degree where for example, Pres. Eisenhower using the National Guard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine) to enforce the Brown versus Board of Education act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education) ruling in 1957.
I know that is rather old news it's even older than I am; but certain states are currently considering making it much more difficult for certain class of people to vote.
It's still the same old discrimination at play; it's just disguised as anti-illegal immigrant, but in actual practice, it ends up more so a political power snatching gotcha-out game which ultimately discriminates against people of color and the poor and can also end up being discrimination and/or favoritism schemes embedded in the “local laws” that allows nepotism and potentially in all cases, and inevitably in others embodies essentially discriminatory practices within those “local governments”.

I'm not saying nor do I mean to imply that Ron Paul would be as discriminatory as what I've mentioned above, but people are like that in some places, and for those people making the federal government “smaller” is Codex so to speak for them to make their own rules without concern of immediate “federal government interference” getting in their way.

Whether or not they get away with that in the long run is another issue; nonetheless, why even give them a foot in the door or a boost up.
What I'm basically saying is that without certain federal protections on civil rights and social safety nets certain innocent people would essentially get run out of certain towns, which they now call home; even more so then what does actually happen in current, times.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">

You think WIC is one of the best things in our society?
The foods those mothers are allowed to buy are super unhealthy with a few minor exceptions.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> I agree with the assessment of “super unhealthy” foods, but I have first-hand experience witnessing children with rickets (https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/985510-overview). I agree that much of the food that the WIC program is in essence subsidizing is less healthy than what you or I would probably choose.
But it is still better than the degree of depravity that I have witnessed firsthand, WIC was the only other alternative to the extreme depravity and still is for many more than you may realize.

Also, there are supplements and other foods that could be used instead of those “super unhealthy” foods that could instead be subsidized (by WIC) as alternatives and substitutes.
There is where I think you and I may be in agreement; that subsidizing certain things like milk and cheese when other things that would actually cost the same or even less in some cases, some of which work better, could be subsidized instead. Of course, I think the ultimate decision which way to go on that should be up to the parents and/or legal guardians.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">

...And again, I think you need to bear in mind Ron Paul's priorities for fixing this fiscal wreckage. First and foremost, end the wars, bring our troops home from all over the world, close down the 700+ military installations across the globe, and save trillions that way alone...
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> I agree with much of that in principle.

There may be some things in play that you and I are not aware of that may make it necessary for the defense of this country in this modern age, whereas it may be necessary for some of those military bases around the world to continue to exist until humans learn to get along with each other on this small planet better than we do at this point in time.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">

...Then, take down the federal reserve which is devaluing our dollar through out of control printing of money....
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> You do realize that if that was to happen immediately there would have to be some sort of the standard for trade.
We most certainly do not have that much gold, silver, platinum, etc.

So what would be the standard of payment for the national debt and deficit in regards to the international trade situation; specifically, for example, China at this point in time? I don't think it would be in our best interest to tell them to simply buzz off, and to write it off as a loss. Do you?
I suppose we could be independent using only the resources within our borders and territories, but right now were not anywhere near set up enough to pull that one off.
What would we repay (China for example) those trillions of national debit dollars with? Because the Fed like it or not, is the power of the dollar however “weak” or “strong” the dollar may be.

What are our most valuable export resources these days?... ...Technology and military armaments?
I'm not so sure we would want to use those to pay the debt in place of the dollar to the foreign entities that we owe so much money in the form of dollars to.

I think the one way to get rid of the corruption of the dollar is to methodically reconstruct it and go to some other system. But what that system could be?... ...I really don't have an answer for but the electronically stored Federal dollars using the Federal Reserve system as it exists now does not seem to be doing us right, that’s for sure.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">

Then cut federal programs that impact the poor and needy the least. Ron Paul is very sympathetic to those dependent on the welfare system, as he knows its not their fault, it is the systems fault that made them this way.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> That sounds good, but where are his specific ideas?
Are there any analyses of those ideas? Does any of his fellow Republican or Tea Party reps support any of those ideas of his at all?
What would happen if others in Ron Paul's wake get elected who are not so sympathetic to the needs of the dependent and poor?
Ron Paul may have some great ideas, but all I have heard is some right leaning rhetoric with some libertarian twists, which sound good in some ways. But, has Ron Paul made any specific creative ideas or just generalizations such as the strict constitutionalist idealism, “free market, and all that? If so, have any of those ideas been analyzed? If so, who analyzed them? Where are the results of such analysis? And last but not least are the analysis (if there are any) done by any nonpartisan and non-politically connected entities or were they limited only to conservative think-tanks?

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">

Ron Paul did not vote for Obamacare policy like the democrats and others. That bill is the ultimate example of government in bed with corporations. And he does not advocate a government run healthcare system either. You know, we're broke, can't afford it, regardless of what Michael Moore says....
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> I don't remember me ever mentioning Michael Moore; but whatever.
IMHO, this “we're broke”, austerity, rhetorical bullshit is the essence of the mega corporations talking through the politicians and pundits mouths. (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?78784-Political-Cartoons-April-2011&p=133187#post133187)

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">

When you advocate single-payer, what do you say to people like me, who don't want to be reliant on the conventional medical system that is based on many outright frauds and scams?
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> I say you’re not thinking outside of the box!
I think the single-payer system should be what you choose. If you want to use herbs or supplements for illnesses, not merely diet, but for actual medical conditions, which believe it or not, you will eventually have. It should be up to you, the individual whether or not to use an herbalist, chiropractor, acupuncturist, nutritionist, dentist, psychologist, psychiatrist, dermatologist, or G.P. etc.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">

...Why should I have to pay with my taxes for a healthcare system that I'm basically not going to use?
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> When we the people get out of that the box so to speak I think somewhere there is the availability in your local neighborhood that already exists that single-payer, if it's done right would work for you the way you would choose.

Anyway, most people's houses don't burn down, but we still need the fire department.
But of course you don't plan on having your house catch on fire or burn down so you may not think [I]you need a fire department.
Maybe [I]you think you're so healthy that you'll never get ill or injured badly enough for hospitalization. If you assume that hopefully your assumption is correct, but it may not be. Just because you don't have the cash in your pocket to pay for emergency care doesn't mean they're not going to bill you for it. You may be unconscious and not have a choice if it's an injury.
You may not “choose” to be disabled in the future, but it could happen.
I think of it this way everybody in our society and in the world for that matter ends up walking a tight rope (so to speak) at some point or another in their lives; some because of their work or environment where they live more often than others.
I would rather live in a society that has a safety net under that tight rope even if I have to pay for it and help keep it strong, because I might be the next one that falls off the tight rope.

Maybe you're just young and you feel invincible, but I guarantee you you're not invincible. Nobody is.
I've known people that all of their lives ate healthy foods and live in healthy places and they still got ill with something or got cancer or ended up injured from traffic accidents, work-related injuries, or whatever, etc..

Maybe you are one of those kinds of people that think that if you lose a leg or have some other horrible expensive injury or become disabled in some other way you're just going to allow yourself die, but I can assure you that if that ever did happen (and I hope it does not) you would probably want to continue living.
Life after something like that is much better with a social safety net, than it is without one.

Sometimes there is no quick fix, and it's tempting to slash and burn things like social safety nets and things that we ourselves individually are not utilizing today , because they seem to cost so much.
I think there are shared social responsibilities that all of us have, which actually have mutual benefits for all of us.
Some social safety net's that keep the well-being of us and or our neighbors is actually a form of local national security.
It keeps contagions down and maintains reasonable levels of individual dignity, liberty, and privacy.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">

Do you know what budget cuts he is demanding???
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> I know of two of them. One of them is Social Security the other one is Medicare.

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">

Again, Ron Paul is not for taking away people's welfare who are dependent on it right now.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> Not today anyways.
Tomorrow is another day; isn't it?

<table class="MsoNormalTable" style="border-collapse:collapse;mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style="mso-yfti-irow:0;mso-yfti-firstrow:yes;mso-yfti-lastrow:yes"> <td style="padding:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt" valign="top">
You are misconstruing the situation entirely, and Ive explained it above pretty well. Those who are needing SS could opt in still, right? </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
That's like saying it's okay to opt out of paying part of your property tax because you don't drive a car on the road or the fire department because you don't think your house will burn or the police because you don't think the people in your neighborhood will hurt you or otherwise give you a reason to call the police on them.
Maybe in an ideal situation, that would be okay but if your house is allowed to burn and your neighbor’s, who didn't opt out house catches fire from your house and the fire department doesn't come to put your house fire out in the first place, because you opted out; that wouldn't be right, would it?
Social Security and other social safety nets are the same kind of thing; they need enough input to continue to exist at all.

Braggi

05-19-2011, 09:24 AM

... I do not advocate zero government regulation, or anarchy. I do however think that the federal government should have much less power and that regulations should, for the most part, be on a much more local level. The state level is a good start, but I think an even more refined approach is necessary to protecting ourselves and our communities. ...

This notion expresses a naiveté about the real world. We live in a time of multi-national corporations that dwarf some countries in their power and wealth. We need global regulation more than we need local regulation. A global body needs to be created to reign in the influence of such behemoths as Exxon Mobil and Monsanto and tax them accordingly. Our federal government is powerless before these juggernauts of industry. How is a state or a city supposed to face off against them and protect the interests of the citizens?

The Libertarian ideas of governance are equivalent to surrender to the might of the money wielding corporations and equivalent to handing over the remaining value of the commons; those assets held in trust by governments for the benefit of We the People, to their corporate masters.

Every time you hear the idea of "smaller government" a red flag should go up immediately. It's not smaller government we need. What we need is less powerful corporations. The Libertarians are diametrically opposed to limiting the power of corporations and in support of stripping the extremely threadbare and limited protections that still remain to the citizens and the common assets.

We need more protections, not less. We need more regulation, not less. Nearly every problem we now face as a civilization can be laid directly at the feet of those who have fought for reduced regulation of corporations.

-Jeff

theindependenteye

05-19-2011, 04:05 PM

>>>...regulations should, for the most part, be on a much more local level. The state level is a good start, but I think an even more refined approach is necessary to protecting ourselves and our communities. ...

The great thing about state and local control is that county commissioners and state legislators can be bought much more cheaply than US Senators. Perhaps with the money saved, the corporations, developers, etc., can create more jobs.

That also promotes business in allowing it to exercise the full power of the marketplace: if California enacts environmental regulations, minimum wage, pollution controls, product safety laws, child labor standards, all that crap, businesses can simply threaten to move to Arizona — they won't have to go all the way to Bangladesh. Onerous local regulations can be bypassed by simply moving upriver to the next county. If your lungs accumulate our toxins, we'll charge you for it.

Local politicians and law enforcement understand much more clearly who's supposed to have local clout. Many other advantages flow. A reading of the history of the Gilded Age will reveal a whole catalog. Probably we started making these mistakes when Lincoln reluctantly issued the Emancipation Proclamation. No reason to jump to the conclusion that a man owns his own ass if someone else has already paid good money for it.

A new day will dawn.