https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkaAowyYkyo
A real revolutionary!
Printable View
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkaAowyYkyo
A real revolutionary!
____Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by someguy:
REVOLUTIONARY? Corporations will regulate themselves? RIght! How do you conclude that he won’t cut Medicare when he actually states in the interview that there is no need for it? He suggests that we should save our money for our own healthcare -- never mind those who don’t have money to save. Ron Paul is clever with his message, spewing words that might appeal to a wide constituency: bring the troops home, legalize marijuana, etc. Talk is cheap -- I should say it’s affordable when you have billionaire donors who will shell out big bucks to keep the public bamboozled. I’m not fooled as his dittoheads seem to be. Revolutionary? Give me a break!
____
It seems to me that with the revolving door between government, and corporate lobbyists,corporations already regulate themselves tilting the playing field in their direction with huge advantages over small business. Hence the corporate tax loopholes, subsidies for massive corporations, and the many legislative bills written by industry in this country.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by zenekar:
____Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by someguy:
There it is. Corporations tilting the field. Ron Paul doesn't appear to have a problem with that. Now, imagine a government by the people, with agencies of the people regulating corporations and putting restrictions on conflict of interests and the revolving door.
Well Ron Paul does have a problem with it. Your imaginative government is nothing but an imagination, not a solution, Ron Paul's philosophy is. Get the playing field back to level by letting the people decide how to regulate industry through their dollar (often called the market) is giving the power to the people and allowing small business a chance at competing.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by zenekar:
So riddle me this, how are you going to use government to fix the problems of government being in bed with corporations? Is Obama supposed to do it? Michelle Bachmann maybe? Who's your choice for creating a change where the government actually works for the people?
the standard posters here aren't going to change their minds; we're all pretty clear on our positions. But a rhetorical question for the theoretical fresh face stopping by:Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by someguy:
"the market" will regulate corporate behavior?? really! when's that happened successfully? The biggest profits are to be had by exploiting things that aren't part of the market, in effect getting your raw materials for free. Things like clean air & water. Also, the market doesn't price things rationally; people will undervalue their future health, or overpay when facing short-term threats to their welfare even if it compromises their long-term prospects. "The market" doesn't do much of a job of balancing humane, spiritual or religious values against material goods.
bingo. Right question - and one worth solving. I don't think looking for some epic hero is much of a strategy, though. "Who" is the wrong question. "How" - that's important to explore.Quote:
So riddle me this, how are you going to use government to fix the problems of government being in bed with corporations? Is Obama supposed to do it? Michelle Bachmann maybe? Who's your choice for creating a change where the government actually works for the people?
That is what we have - a government by the people instead of by the rule of law. The people are happy to get cash seized by force from others. They are happy to have their unions get bailed out by seizing money from other hard-working Americans. They are happy to live their lives by receiving "the check", without conscience, as others struggle to pay the taxes to keep "the check" coming. Government is all too happy to shovel money around to please The People.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by zenekar:
In democracy, it is inevitable that the people will realize they can vote themselves largesse at the expense of others. That is a horrific injustice.
What we really need is government to obey The Law. All public servants swear to do so. The US Constitution does not allow most of what is being done today to please the people. It is the greatest injustice that government has adopted the Socialist doctrine of seizing and redistributing wealth to please some at the expense of others. Government has illegally assumed the power to favor some corporations with cash seized from us (like GM) while punishing others. That is the root cause of corporations pouring cash into politicians' pockets to seek favor.
"The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those that vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional." - Samuel Adams
That is one of the better videos I've seen. He really covers his whole economic plan. For those of you who are concerned about Ron Paul's position on Social Security and Medicare, watch this. He would go after the Military and Corporate bailouts which would be HUGE. He'd reform Social Security and Medicare and let 40 something's like me opt out. (I just hate hearing the toilet flush every 2 weeks when I get my paycheck :-( Everyone in my generation and younger would opt out in a heartbeat). But he wouldn't axe these programs.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by someguy:
Liz:waccosun:
Ron Paul can make any statement he wants about what he WOULD do. That does not guarantee that he WOULD, even if he could. And if he sincerely tries, It doesn't mean that Congress or the military industrial machine WOULD LET HIM. Ron Paul doesn't mention anything about corporate greed or raising taxes on the super wealthy. I don't mean to be patronizing but I'm curious what knowledge you have about the history of Social Security, how it works. It's a known fact that SS is NOT broke. Why would you want to opt out? Same for Medicare. How will you take care of medical expenses as you grow older -- which you will. Fortunately, Ron Paul is not electable as President in the two-party scheme in the US. What a sorry bunch of candidates -- a testament to the broken education system. Democracy? in the US? Time for serious critical thinking. There is a global revolution for democracy and Ron Paul along with his offspring, is an impediment to progressive change.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by ubaru:
Is that why most of the protesters at Occupy Wall Street are Ron Paul supporters? Ron Paul is the only politician out there on television condemning the assassination of American citizens without due process. Sounds like he is the leader of this United States Revolution for real change.Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by zenekar:
Most? Really? Did you conduct a survey?Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by someguy:
So I read that Ron Paul would not eliminate Social Security and Medicare, he'd just make them optional so that everyone under 40 would opt out and the programs would then eliminate themselves. I guess that doesn't qualify as "elimination." Maybe as "enema."
Why not go a step further? — eliminate all concern for health care, food and shelter for everyone over 65 unless they can afford full price, and those who die will simply do so. If you haven't got rich by then, you're not worth your existence. And if you're out of a job, if your pension plan goes bust or the stock market wipes out your investments or you just never managed to earn & save enough to *have* investments, just move to India or Mexico where you can get your old job back — at a more reasonable wage, of course — and sweat your ass off till you drop, you useless turd.
Yes, there's a problem with Social Security. It's funded by a highly regressive tax, paid on wages, not on investments, and at a cut-off level that exempts most of the earnings of the wealthy and even the micro-mini-wealthy. This is undoubtedly the only way such a scheme could have got thru Congress in the first place, and it continues to be the flaw in the system. And Gov. Perry is quite correct in suggesting that it resembles a Ponzi scheme in that people pay in and derive revenue from money that new people pay in; if the pay-in stops, the system collapses. That's what Paul proposes to make happen.
But I know of no Ponzi scheme that's lasted 75 years and paid out every cent people expect from it, and continues to do so. If this be Ponzi, let's make the most of it.
It's been said many times, but seems to be unheard, that Social Security is not broke, that the government has regularly borrowed from the trust fund, and that it accounts for zero, zilch, nada a cent of the national debt. But there's been a regular, steady decade-long din of imminent collapse that quite naturally makes a large segment of the public feel that they're flushing away good money. If you're scrambling every week to make your paycheck stretch, obviously you'd prefer those extra few bucks NOW.
When farmers were brought under Social Security, my grandfather fumed and cursed the government; when he started receiving benefits, he changed his mind — he still hated the government, but regularly cashed his check. When employees of non-profit organizations were brought under Social Security, my mate and I were damned unhappy: we and our theatre company were always surviving on a shoestring, and this was one more expense. Now, we're damned grateful for it.
Paul's notion of making it voluntary, like Bush's proposal to bet the whole bundle on the stock market, is obviously a way of killing it without calling it that. Like every fervent ideologue, rightwing and leftwing, beak or tailfeather, he hypothesizes consequences without the foggiest notion — much less evidence — of whether they'll actually result in real human happiness or misery. Perhaps he cares about that, but as far as I can tell, all he really cares about is the purity of his ideology.
Respectfully, with reservations--
Conrad