I have enough reasons to not vote for Ron Paul

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by vegno
 


well...your statement clearly shows a lack of knowledge about the EU...
...the nations in the EU still retain their constitution
even in the even that the EU pass a constitution, it would deal with matters of international relations and ideals to reach for, in the same way the universal declaration of rights does.

there wouldn't be any discarding of a national constitution and the implication of such is baseless and possibly politically motivated fear mongering.

reply to post by AshleyD
 


but Ashley, it's not the religious beliefs i have a problem with, it's the rejection of evolution. i don't care what ron paul believes as long as it's something that science hasn't explained or has no interest in

i wouldn't vote for a geocentrist or a flat-earther for the exact same reason.

this is a matter of denying reality, not a matter of simple theological choice.




posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
but Ashley, it's not the religious beliefs i have a problem with, it's the rejection of evolution.


I understood that.
I was mostly replying to the person who said you were making the decision based on religion. Not replying to you claiming you were basing it on religion.



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 03:33 AM
link   
it's odd that nobody here has decided to demonstrate why ron paul would be such a great candidate and/or why his policies would work...

can anybody provide that for me?



posted on Feb, 10 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I must have missed your questions about his policies in all that evolution vs creationism talk. What do you think wouldn't work?



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by captainplanet
 


well, how would a gold standard improve things?
or withdrawing for the UN and NATO?
or any of his other policies

show me how they'd work, i just don't see it



posted on Feb, 12 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


The government is supposed to collect the money it needs to secure our liberties through taxes, and banks are supposed to hold our money and make what they can off of loans. Everything else is over-management, we don't need to print so much money, it's counter productive to personal wealth and a free market. If a government program, a bank, or a corporation is failing, then it’s a reflection of their policies and they should be made to remedy the situation or be replaced by something more productive. Instead we print them money.

Prices fluctuate naturally in the market with a gold standard. No organization is supposed have the power to steer the economy, there is just no reason for it. If we had a standard value for money, it could not be manipulated to benefit what people, who we don't elect, perceive to be best. The federal reserve doesn’t always know what’s best for us and it shouldn't be their job to. You can’t just print more money and put it where you want. A free market creates free competition and better results. Combined with eliminating personal and corporate income taxes, you’d have more spending power and more jobs. You have to let the market work itself out or you just create a new problem with every solution.

The most prevalent argument I’ve seen for the UN or NATO is the genocide in WWII. How many troops have they deployed to Darfur? We could probably have friendlier and more productive relations with other nations if we got rid of some trade embargos and 'sticks and carrots' policies and just dealt with everyone.

I believe in limited government on the idea of free competition. If you let controversial issues run their course where they are desired(like abortion and stem cell research), when the results start to come in, the right ways would become more obvious and the issue would no longer be so controversial. People could more easily prove and spread practical methods in many areas. Like if you let educational techniques prove themselves to be less or more effective then others, rather then screwing everyone up at once in the name of standardization before you really know what to do.

The principals of individual liberty applied to many areas should supersede any group identities and eliminate benefits or disadvantages granted to anyone for simply being part of a certain group.

I also wouldn’t mind seeing all the gangs and drug dealers go out of business by ending the war on drugs.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainplanet
The government is supposed to collect the money it needs to secure our liberties through taxes, and banks are supposed to hold our money and make what they can off of loans.


this is an assumption.



Everything else is over-management,


this is a statement from an assumption



we don't need to print so much money, it's counter productive to personal wealth and a free market.


how?



If a government program, a bank, or a corporation is failing, then it’s a reflection of their policies and they should be made to remedy the situation or be replaced by something more productive. Instead we print them money.


um...can you provide examples of us simply printing more money?



Prices fluctuate naturally in the market with a gold standard.


could you demonstrate this? it's yet another statement without any discerning logic behind it

what if one particular organization controls a significant portion of the gold market...or if several small groups band together to manipulate the market?



No organization is supposed have the power to steer the economy, there is just no reason for it.


no reason for it? there's no reason for us to be wearing clothes, as we have other ways to keep warm, but we still do, don't we?
see what i'm trying to say?



If we had a standard value for money, it could not be manipulated to benefit what people, who we don't elect, perceive to be best.


i already pointed out that it can be manipulated by people...
and it might even be easier to manipulate.

and you're now making the assumption that elected officials act more often for the greater good than non-elected officials
elected officials are set to the sways of popular sentiment, that's not something we want when dealing with complex things like the economy or constitutional law...



The federal reserve doesn’t always know what’s best for us and it shouldn't be their job to.


the federal reserve sure as hell has a better idea about how to manage the economy than the rest of us...



You can’t just print more money and put it where you want.


you keep saying this...where is the evidence for it?



A free market creates free competition and better results.


counterpoint: health care.

france, malta, and the UK have better health care systems than the USA, but they don't have free market systems. why does the free market not work here?



Combined with eliminating personal and corporate income taxes, you’d have more spending power and more jobs.


what's to keep this money from going overseas?



You have to let the market work itself out or you just create a new problem with every solution.


...ok, you're going to have to provide evidence to support this magical idea that the free market will level things out, as i'm not going to take your word for it.



The most prevalent argument I’ve seen for the UN or NATO is the genocide in WWII. How many troops have they deployed to Darfur?


so throw the baby out with the bathwater? nobody said the system is perfect, but the USA is a permanent veto power on the security council, and could act for great change...but it doesn't.

and read the UN charter...it's kind of big on that whole "sovereignty" thing



We could probably have friendlier and more productive relations with other nations if we got rid of some trade embargos and 'sticks and carrots' policies and just dealt with everyone.


could probably?
is that all you have?



I believe in limited government on the idea of free competition.


you keep saying that you support it and that it's such a great idea, but you can't bring up any evidence to support why it would be so much better than a system like Norway or Sweden.



If you let controversial issues run their course where they are desired(like abortion and stem cell research), when the results start to come in, the right ways would become more obvious and the issue would no longer be so controversial.


not on those issues...
especially when you have people that are basing their position on unrelenting faith...
and there are often no "right ways"
...and popular sentiment is off dead wrong...
obviously there are many things wrong with your line of reasoning...



People could more easily prove and spread practical methods in many areas. Like if you let educational techniques prove themselves to be less or more effective then others, rather then screwing everyone up at once in the name of standardization before you really know what to do.


standardization isn't about techniques, it's about material. what areas are being covered and that stuff...
so far as i've seen, educational methods should be left up to the individual schools and the curriculum should be standardized.



The principals of individual liberty applied to many areas should supersede any group identities and eliminate benefits or disadvantages granted to anyone for simply being part of a certain group.


i hear this a lot...but nobody is getting particular benefits from being part of a certain group.



I also wouldn’t mind seeing all the gangs and drug dealers go out of business by ending the war on drugs.


that wouldn't really put the gangs out of business....
or many of the drug dealers
they often diversify their elicit dealings.

and we'd end one problem and create a huge one. do you remember the crack epidemic?
now imagine how things would be if there were corporations backing crack!
legalizing all drugs would be folly, as we'd create a new industry that would end up being a supersized, legal version of the common drug dealer



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 




You can’t just print more money and put it where you want.


you keep saying this...where is the evidence for it?


Here’s a friendly explanation of the Federal Reserve:

The Fed also controls the size of the “money supply” — which is a bit different than the amount of currency in circulation. There are several different measures of the money supply, starting with physical currency and reserves. (Other measures add in checking and savings deposits, money market accounts, CDs and other forms of “cash.”) When the Federal Reserve decides to boost the money supply, it buys Treasury bonds on the open market. The cash it pays to the sellers of those bonds (almost all of which take the form of electronic bits) goes into the banking system. The Fed doesn’t just hand that cash over to a bank; it makes it available to a bank to lend.

Loans have the effect of creating cash: If you borrow cash from your credit card, that cash gets spent as easily as if you have cashed a paycheck. So when the Fed encourages more lending (which it also does by cutting interest rates) it puts more money in private hands, which typically increases economic activity.

On the other hand, if the Fed thinks there’s too much “money” sloshing around (a situation that can fuel inflation) it will sell some of its Treasury bonds, taking cash away from buyers of those bonds, and mopping up some of the cash in the system in the process. It can also raise short-term interest rates, which make it more expensive for all of us to borrow. That (usually) also slows down the economy.


www.msnbc.msn.com...


When they think we need more money, they buy treasury bonds and transfer money into the banking system, which then transfers money into private hands. The more money you have, the bigger a loan you can get. So, the federal reserve is pumping money into the corporations and Donald Trumps their banks choose to give money to. It is all in the hands of the federal reserve, it‘s not necessary or practical.

The idea is they are stimulating the economy. But you could also stimulate the economy by getting rid of corporate and personal income taxes, hence inviting more companies to the United States, more jobs, and more spending money.

Leaving it to the supply and demand of the free market eliminates the possibility of human error and takes the control of our entire nation out of the hands of a small group of bankers.




we don't need to print so much money, it's counter productive to personal wealth and a free market.


how?


Devaluation of the dollar, hence your savings. People who save their money instead of live on credit loose buying power on the global scale. The value wouldn’t be decreasing so much with a gold standard, the amounts would just be changing hands with the market. The value of the dollar has dropped 96% since the federal reserve got started.



Prices fluctuate naturally in the market with a gold standard.


could you demonstrate this? it's yet another statement without any discerning logic behind it


Prices fluctuate naturally as money changes hands by the effects of supply and demand, rather then manipulated inflation/deflation.



what if one particular organization controls a significant portion of the gold market...or if several small groups band together to manipulate the market?


Then people haven’t been working, saving, or paying attention. What if one particular organization already has control of the money?


no reason for it? there's no reason for us to be wearing clothes, as we have other ways to keep warm, but we still do, don't we?
see what i'm trying to say?


No. The potential for abuse of power is something we’ve historically tried to avoid in this country.


i already pointed out that it can be manipulated by people...
and it might even be easier to manipulate.


It can’t be manipulated if the market controls it, unless good business is manipulation.


and you're now making the assumption that elected officials act more often for the greater good than non-elected officials
elected officials are set to the sways of popular sentiment, that's not something we want when dealing with complex things like the economy or constitutional law...



No one would be controlling it under normal circumstances. If something happened and we lost too much gold, our transparent congress would be made to fix it, as opposed to the not so transparent Federal Reserve. It’s usually congresses’ job to sway to popular sentiments, but they are capable of original thought. There are economically and constitutionally minded politicians, and they would take the floor.

Who are you proposing should be determining laws for us?


the federal reserve sure as hell has a better idea about how to manage the economy than the rest of us...


You’re right, it’s currently their job and they don‘t report everything, so they know the most. The first step would be making them transparent, not eliminating them. And it wouldn’t need to be on anyone’s shoulders if you left it to a free market.


counterpoint: health care.

france, malta, and the UK have better health care systems than the USA, but they don't have free market systems. why does the free market not work here?


We don’t have one. They are smaller nations with less debt and expenses. Prices would go down if people could choose any doctor they want, it‘s just how competition works. If you can’t get rid of income tax, let medical bills be deducted from your taxes.



posted on Feb, 13 2008 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



what's to keep this money from going overseas?



Cedar Rapids, Iowa: Mr. Paul, how do you plan to stop the outsourcing of jobs? If you do not plan to stop outsourcing, how will you help Americans who lose their jobs to outsourcing? Also, what can be done about the monopoly and bias of the media? Thank you.

Rep. Ron Paul: There's not much you can do about the bias of the media other than try to counteract it by putting the truth out best you can, and the Internet has been a great weapon for holding the media accountable.

Outsourcing is a reflection of a bad economic environment domestically. If you fix that, you fix outsourcing. Our primary export is paper money, and that should change if you change the monetary policy. We should drop the Overseas Investment Protection Corporation -- which makes taxpayers cover losses for U.S. companies doing business in foreign countries -- have a sound currency and lower taxes. With that we could become competitive again, but that is going to be very very difficult.

www.washingtonpost.com...


Eliminating corporate income tax would help encourage more businesses to come here. Go back to the “buy American” state of mind, it would be easier with more incentive for competitive business inside the US. We are the biggest market in the world. We’d have more spending money and better options.


...ok, you're going to have to provide evidence to support this magical idea that the free market will level things out, as i'm not going to take your word for it.


The fact that it needs leveling is my evidence that our method should be scrutinized. There are too many taxes and not enough competition to call what we have now a free market and then blame our economy on it. Further scrutiny would bring more answers.




The most prevalent argument I’ve seen for the UN or NATO is the genocide in WWII. How many troops have they deployed to Darfur?


so throw the baby out with the bathwater? nobody said the system is perfect, but the USA is a permanent veto power on the security council, and could act for great change...but it doesn't.

and read the UN charter...it's kind of big on that whole "sovereignty" thing


It’s about money and relations. We have our own problems and UN is accomplishing nothing but political tension by trying to tell each other what they should all be doing, “sticks and carrots“. “sovereignty” aside. You don’t need the UN for people to collaborate on peace.



could probably?
is that all you have?


At least I had that much. You haven’t proven to me that anything wouldn’t work yet, or that the current system does, or that any other system would.

I didn’t realize I’d be getting cut down into sentences in such a testy manner. You were pretty vague, I was throwing things out there.



I believe in limited government on the idea of free competition.


you keep saying that you support it and that it's such a great idea, but you can't bring up any evidence to support why it would be so much better than a system like Norway or Sweden.


I’m unfamiliar with Norway or Sweden and how their markets are controlled. If your talking about heath care, I don’t how expensive their medicine is, for what I‘m assuming is their government, to purchase. Or how many medications their citizens are on compared to ours.



If you let controversial issues run their course where they are desired(like abortion and stem cell research), when the results start to come in, the right ways would become more obvious and the issue would no longer be so controversial.


not on those issues...
especially when you have people that are basing their position on unrelenting faith...
and there are often no "right ways"
...and popular sentiment is off dead wrong...
obviously there are many things wrong with your line of reasoning...


Ignoring the last line, that’s why you deal with things locally. Who’s to say what the right way is for everyone?


standardization isn't about techniques, it's about material. what areas are being covered and that stuff...
so far as i've seen, educational methods should be left up to the individual schools and the curriculum should be standardized.


At the very least, allow private and home schooling tax credits to allow them to compete for the average citizen.



The principals of individual liberty applied to many areas should supersede any group identities and eliminate benefits or disadvantages granted to anyone for simply being part of a certain group.


i hear this a lot...but nobody is getting particular benefits from being part of a certain group.


Good, that’s half of it, now make sure no one has any disadvantages either. If that’s done already, then even better.



and we'd end one problem and create a huge one. do you remember the crack epidemic?
now imagine how things would be if there were corporations backing crack!
legalizing all drugs would be folly, as we'd create a new industry that would end up being a supersized, legal version of the common drug dealer


And all those addicts would be out in the open like alcoholics. And the business would not be nearly as profitable or deadly.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainplanet
Outsourcing is a reflection of a bad economic environment domestically.


...no, it's actually a reflection of a good standard of living domestically. you outsource certain jobs because you just won't get people in your own country to work for $4 a day.

and that's also not what i was talking about...
i was talking about imports of other goods.
cars, chocolates, etc



Eliminating corporate income tax would help encourage more businesses to come here. Go back to the “buy American” state of mind, it would be easier with more incentive for competitive business inside the US. We are the biggest market in the world. We’d have more spending money and better options.


but we'd still be shipping manufacturing jobs to china and southeast asian countries



The fact that it needs leveling is my evidence that our method should be scrutinized. There are too many taxes and not enough competition to call what we have now a free market and then blame our economy on it. Further scrutiny would bring more answers.


i just asked for evidence, where is it?



It’s about money and relations.


isn't that what it's ALWAYS about in diplomacy?



We have our own problems and UN is accomplishing nothing but political tension by trying to tell each other what they should all be doing, “sticks and carrots“.


um...really?
so you're going to completely ignore the work of the WHO?



“sovereignty” aside. You don’t need the UN for people to collaborate on peace.


but the UN sure as hell makes it a lot easier



At least I had that much. You haven’t proven to me that anything wouldn’t work yet, or that the current system does, or that any other system would.


but that's not what we're here for. i'm saying that i don't see how ron paul's system would work. it's a negative position. i don't have to argue it on anything except the simple premise that you haven't proven your arguments.




I didn’t realize I’d be getting cut down into sentences in such a testy manner. You were pretty vague, I was throwing things out there.


i just want something to back up your statements. you're making assertions on complex economic issues in terms of simple assumptions, i want to see the complex economics.



I’m unfamiliar with Norway or Sweden and how their markets are controlled. If your talking about heath care, I don’t how expensive their medicine is, for what I‘m assuming is their government, to purchase. Or how many medications their citizens are on compared to ours.


it's not just markets and health care, it's generally everything. they have big government, they have 2 of the highest standards of living in the world. in fact, Norway has the #1 standard of living.
why shouldn't we adopt a system like Norway's?



Ignoring the last line, that’s why you deal with things locally. Who’s to say what the right way is for everyone?


and if you deal with things locally, you risk the reemergence of jim crowe laws, laws that discriminate against religious minorities (actually, this is already happening), and laws that discriminate against homosexual



At the very least, allow private and home schooling tax credits to allow them to compete for the average citizen.


honestly, home schooling is oftentimes a scam so that parents can make sure their children aren't exposed to other ideas until they've been properly indoctrinated into a particular religious mindset. you'd need to heavily scrutinize both the private schools and the home schooling methods before allowing such tax credits.



Good, that’s half of it, now make sure no one has any disadvantages either. If that’s done already, then even better.


i'd say it is already done...but it isn't. just recently, a parish in Louisiana banned Wiccans...
and homosexuals are still not equally treated under law



And all those addicts would be out in the open like alcoholics. And the business would not be nearly as profitable or deadly.


...but there's a difference. alcoholism isn't a chemical addiction, it's a psychological one. crack addiction is a chemical addiction, something far more likely to explode and become uncontrollable.
crack addiction is more like cigarette addiction meets alcoholism....only 10x worse.

have you ever MET a crack addict?

and the business would actually be more profitable. crack is so cheap and easy to make, imagine how much cheaper it would get when production is industrialized.

i'm sorry, but legalizing all the drugs is just a patently irresponsible idea.



posted on Feb, 14 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



...no, it's actually a reflection of a good standard of living domestically. you outsource certain jobs because you just won't get people in your own country to work for $4 a day.

and that's also not what i was talking about...
i was talking about imports of other goods.
cars, chocolates, etc


Actually, it's both. You can add more incentive to base yourself in the US and people would have more money if you changed economic policies, but counter acting cheap labor in other countries you can only do through consumer responsibility, awareness, and acceptable alternatives.

You can’t cut off imports, trade with other countries is good. Making business better here is a start.


but we'd still be shipping manufacturing jobs to china and southeast asian countries


That’s business, there’s not much the government can do aside from not hurting American business’s.


i just asked for evidence, where is it?


I never said a free market was a magic level. Things will never be level. With a free market, the person with the most customers wins.

What I said was:

You have to let the market work itself out or you just create a new problem with every solution.


If you try and manipulate it for some greater good, you will inevitably screw it up, as we’ve done.


um...really?
so you're going to completely ignore the work of the WHO?


No, maybe I speak too harshly. What I’m saying is we don’t need the UN for that. If people want to contribute to organizations they can, you have to raise awareness and make them want to help.


but the UN sure as hell makes it a lot easier


Forcing global causes on people through taxes is the wrong way to go about it. You’d actually have to make people aware of these things if it was voluntary.


i just want something to back up your statements. you're making assertions on complex economic issues in terms of simple assumptions, i want to see the complex economics.


My assertion is that the Federal Reserve should be made to disclose more information, so that more assertions can be made. That they have proven themselves imperfect with the current value of the dollar, and they wield an unnecessary amount of power. That we could have more money and jobs without incomes taxes. And that the value money can be more stable with gold because the amount of it in the world is more stable.

I don’t have an economic example of a free market or a modern gold standard, because there is none. What we do have, are examples of why our current system could use some revision. But since “that‘s not what we‘re here for”, I guess it’s irrelevant.


it's not just markets and health care, it's generally everything. they have big government, they have 2 of the highest standards of living in the world. in fact, Norway has the #1 standard of living.
why shouldn't we adopt a system like Norway's?


They are a lot smaller then us, that makes national laws easier. They drill coastal oil reserves on top of the fact that they don‘t spend as much militarily or diplomatically. Their education is 33rd in the world.

Last time we led the world with a new idea for government, it worked out pretty good. All we have to do is not abandon some of those fundamentals in favor of assimilation. We aren’t really redistributing wealth with a welfare state, you’re just letting people depend on the government while others are accumulating inheritable wealth. If it ever failed, you’d have more poor. A system that promotes savings, individual responsibility, and respect for local customs is more sustainable and failsafe. We should look for a way to avoid devolving like that if we can.


and if you deal with things locally, you risk the reemergence of jim crowe laws, laws that discriminate against religious minorities (actually, this is already happening), and laws that discriminate against homosexual


Counter act it by making federal law more clear on the emphasis of an individual’s right to any lifestyle without government prosecution. It’s a balance that needs to be found. There should not be any laws against any groups, if you want to fix that, clear the federal law up.


honestly, home schooling is oftentimes a scam so that parents can make sure their children aren't exposed to other ideas until they've been properly indoctrinated into a particular religious mindset. you'd need to heavily scrutinize both the private schools and the home schooling methods before allowing such tax credits.


That’s a form of religious prosecution, right after you complained about it. I’m not a religious person, but I respect their right to their life. These people do have to take some kind of qualified tests to get a diploma, so they are learning the material.


...but there's a difference. alcoholism isn't a chemical addiction, it's a psychological one.


That’s true in the beginning.


have you ever MET a crack addict?


Known a few, and all the justice system did for them was make it impossible for them to move. It’s hard to get off of drugs when the only people you know are drug addicts and your probation makes it illegal for you to move. You want to win the war on drugs? Then fight the dealers and cartels, make some coke field sized nukes, I personally don‘t care. Just don’t fight the addicts, help them. Regulate drug traffic and use in an official capacity. Like regulated alcohol as opposed to moonshine and fermented urine.


and the business would actually be more profitable. crack is so cheap and easy to make, imagine how much cheaper it would get when production is industrialized.


You would not have the crime and destruction of livelihood you have from it now.


i'm sorry, but legalizing all the drugs is just a patently irresponsible idea.


Not as irresponsible as prosecuting users while failing to stop importation. Regulation would be more effective then a never ending war that just hides all the major drug problems in congested areas.



posted on Feb, 15 2008 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainplanet
Actually, it's both. You can add more incentive to base yourself in the US and people would have more money if you changed economic policies, but counter acting cheap labor in other countries you can only do through consumer responsibility, awareness, and acceptable alternatives.


ok, i see where you're coming from on that.



I never said a free market was a magic level. Things will never be level. With a free market, the person with the most customers wins.


actually, it's the person with the biggest profit margins. it doesn't matter if you have 50,000 customers when the guy who has 20,000 customers is making 10% more profit than you are.

now just 1 question: monopolies, what do you think is the role of the government there?



If you try and manipulate it for some greater good, you will inevitably screw it up, as we’ve done.


the state of the current american market



No, maybe I speak too harshly. What I’m saying is we don’t need the UN for that.


well...the WHO is an arm of the UN, the only reason we have the organization is because we have nearly 200 countries working together on it



If people want to contribute to organizations they can, you have to raise awareness and make them want to help.


but that'll still be small scale. to cause real change we need large scale help, nearly 200 countries coming together to do that is a good idea.



Forcing global causes on people through taxes is the wrong way to go about it.


...um...where is the UN doing that?
last time i checked the UN doesn't have the power of taxation, though it collects money from member states to keep itself running



You’d actually have to make people aware of these things if it was voluntary.


one of the biggest goals of the UN is awareness...
UNAIDS is trying to raise AIDS awareness in the owrld.





My assertion is that the Federal Reserve should be made to disclose more information, so that more assertions can be made. That they have proven themselves imperfect with the current value of the dollar,



but that's not an issue with the Federal Reserve as an institution as much as it has to do with who is currently running it...



and they wield an unnecessary amount of power.


that's an opinion.



That we could have more money and jobs without incomes taxes. And that the value money can be more stable with gold because the amount of it in the world is more stable.


but the demand for it is anything but stable...and access to gold in the world isn't stable either...



I don’t have an economic example of a free market or a modern gold standard, because there is none.


have you ever thought that there might be a good reason for that?



What we do have, are examples of why our current system could use some revision. But since “that‘s not what we‘re here for”, I guess it’s irrelevant.


well, by supporting ron paul you're supporting certain types of revision, what i'm here for is to say that i don't want to vote for him because i don't see why his revisions would be good.



They are a lot smaller then us, that makes national laws easier. They drill coastal oil reserves on top of the fact that they don‘t spend as much militarily or diplomatically. Their education is 33rd in the world.


another reason they don't waste money is that they don't have the death penalty

and the US spends so much on the military...yet all ron paul is saying is to station them at the borders. imagine the cost of withdrawing all of our overseas troops, building bases along the borders, and maintaining them there...
ron paul isn't actually calling for a real reduction in non-conflict military spending, is he?

and one more question: when in history has amassing troops on a border been a good idea?



Last time we led the world with a new idea for government, it worked out pretty good.


um...when was this?



All we have to do is not abandon some of those fundamentals in favor of assimilation. We aren’t really redistributing wealth with a welfare state, you’re just letting people depend on the government while others are accumulating inheritable wealth. If it ever failed, you’d have more poor.


but there are aspects of a welfare state that are a good idea. like socialized health care.
shouldn't we incorporate what works out of some systems into our own?



A system that promotes savings, individual responsibility, and respect for local customs is more sustainable and failsafe. We should look for a way to avoid devolving like that if we can.


respect for local customs?



Counter act it by making federal law more clear on the emphasis of an individual’s right to any lifestyle without government prosecution. It’s a balance that needs to be found. There should not be any laws against any groups, if you want to fix that, clear the federal law up.


then you have to take that big step before you make things more localized.



That’s a form of religious prosecution, right after you complained about it.


...no, it isn't. i'm talking about not using government funding to subsidize religion



I’m not a religious person, but I respect their right to their life. These people do have to take some kind of qualified tests to get a diploma, so they are learning the material.


yes, but they don't need tax credits for their education.


Just don’t fight the addicts, help them.


this i agree with.



Regulate drug traffic and use in an official capacity. Like regulated alcohol as opposed to moonshine and fermented urine.


don't you think companies would sell the moonshine and fermented urine if they would make more money that way?
now crack would be the equivalent of such...but it has that added "insanely addictive" dimension to it, so it would be a corporate cash cow




You would not have the crime and destruction of livelihood you have from it now.


no, you'd still have the destruction of livelihood from the addiction, just not the crime...
actually, maybe you'd still have some of the crime. people might still resort to crime to get the money they need to buy their drugs.



Not as irresponsible as prosecuting users while failing to stop importation. Regulation would be more effective then a never ending war that just hides all the major drug problems in congested areas.


i never said the current system is good, just that the total legalization is batcrap insane.



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



now just 1 question: monopolies, what do you think is the role of the government there?


As a business, you're competing with the businesses that offers the same service. No matter how you look at, the one who dominates a particular market, is getting more customers then the comparable market. For whatever reason, they are more successful. They hurt local businesses, but they draw more customers and hire more people. If it’s a monopoly that is edangering American manufacturing jobs, then the market needs to put pressure on them to buy American products. If they are creating a problem, competition will pop up to try and win the market. That‘s where consumer awareness and responsibility comes in.

They can be harmful, but as long as the government isn't doing something to exclusively help the big business, then it’s not a government issue.


well...the WHO is an arm of the UN, the only reason we have the organization is because we have nearly 200 countries working together on it


It could just as well be a private organization. It would force every good cause that needs funding to spread awareness about there issues in order to get funding. I’m sure our celebrities and monopolizing companies would love to promote them.


but that'll still be small scale. to cause real change we need large scale help, nearly 200 countries coming together to do that is a good idea.


There is already more awareness to start now, thanks in part to the UN. People would have their tax money to do what they want with. They could just privatize working arms of the UN. They could come to citizens of the countries that used to pay taxes to the UN, and ask them to donate as much as they want, as annually or more as they did through taxes. It would all be voluntary, some people would give more money, and they could even go to wealthy citizens that weren’t in the UN if they wanted.

I think it would be more beneficial to the cause in the long run if you actually had to win people over.


last time i checked the UN doesn't have the power of taxation, though it collects money from member states to keep itself running


The money needs to come from somewhere, and when it’s government funded, it’s tax funded.


one of the biggest goals of the UN is awareness...
UNAIDS is trying to raise AIDS awareness in the owrld.


That part wouldn’t change if it was private. If it was private and voluntary, which would mean it had more danger of going under, people with the ability to help(like TV and media people) may feel more obligated to do so. They would need to increase our awareness without government funding, and our pop culture is very world minded today.


but that's not an issue with the Federal Reserve as an institution as much as it has to do with who is currently running it...


That’s why it shouldn’t be in the sole hands of a single organization, because people run it directly. In a free market with a gold standard, statistics directly run the market, not someone’s interpretation of them. It cuts down on human error.


but the demand for it is anything but stable...and access to gold in the world isn't stable either...


If gold was the standard of our money, and we lost a lot of it, our dollar would go down. If we got more gold, the value would go up. The value of our money would be as stable as our business if we were dealing in gold.


another reason they don't waste money is that they don't have the death penalty


Just so you know, Ron Paul is against that.


and the US spends so much on the military...yet all ron paul is saying is to station them at the borders. imagine the cost of withdrawing all of our overseas troops, building bases along the borders, and maintaining them there...

ron paul isn't actually calling for a real reduction in non-conflict military spending, is he?


I know what you’re saying, but it wouldn’t take much of our foreign military spending to hold down the border. We have bases all over, just put some on the border and have people patrol.



and one more question: when in history has amassing troops on a border been a good idea?


If that was all you did, it wouldn't be a good idea, because people would eventually find new ways to get in and it would be a never ending battle and money pit.. If we enforced and/or changed some of our laws, they wouldn't be rewarded so much for coming here illegally.

Here he lists other things that could be done to reduce the problem:



Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.

Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.

No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.

No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.

End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.

Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

RonPaul2008.com/issues


The border isn’t the real problem.



posted on Feb, 16 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



Last time we led the world with a new idea for government, it worked out pretty good.


um...when was this?


This is the new world, even if it's older now. We made a government that could not use the people like every other government(that I'm aware of) in history had done. It's worked pretty good to this point.

The more you centralize, the more control the government has, and the less alternatives you have. When there are no alternatives or competition, things always fail. And when people are dependant, they are hurt more by a failure. I think we have certain aspects of our government, that if re-focused on, could sustain us indefinitely, without needing to let the government run the country.


but there are aspects of a welfare state that are a good idea. like socialized health care.
shouldn't we incorporate what works out of some systems into our own?


In a socialistic state, you should have socialized healthcare, but there are alternatives with a free-market. You could let people deduct medical bills from taxes while we pay so much of them, that would be similar. If people could choose any doctor they want, their charges would become more competitive, and so would effective treatments. There are benefits to having people fight over your money, you need to get the government out of the medical monopoly.


respect for local customs?


Just a general statement, people in California shouldn’t be making decisions for New Jersey(another general statement). Respect for local laws.


then you have to take that big step before you make things more localized.


Then lets elect someone who will get the ball rolling. It depends on what you’re localizing, some things can be done more easily then others. It wouldn’t be a magic wand that makes all things local, you would have to take things on individually and sort them out that way.


...no, it isn't. i'm talking about not using government funding to subsidize religion


You'd be funding their education, not religion.


yes, but they don't need tax credits for their education.


If they don't like the methods of public schools, and they pay for them anyway through taxes, then they should be able to get a tax credit for a private school or home schooling. That would make everyone be able to seek alternatives, not just people that can afford it.


no, you'd still have the destruction of livelihood from the addiction, just not the crime...


The crime plays a major role in the problems people have now. If it wasn't illegal, and we developed a different attitude, they wouldn't get so cut off from their families or stuck in the justice system. If dealing drugs is your first job, and you stick with it, when you’re older and wiser you don’t have the resume to do anything else. If they were doing it legally, at least they’d have business credentials or something. You need to developed a more responsible attitude.

You could still have state laws.


actually, maybe you'd still have some of the crime. people might still resort to crime to get the money they need to buy their drugs.


It’d be cheaper, as you pointed out. They also wouldn’t have to hide, so they could potentially have jobs. Their will always be some thieving addict, but if you don’t outcast them, it wouldn’t be as bad. There wouldn’t be so many criminal drug records crippling careers, encouraging illegal activity.



posted on Feb, 21 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by captainplanet
 


i guess the conflict boils down to this
you think that privatization will be more efficient and effective and i disagree...
and we really don't have enough data to make a conclusive statement on the issue, so we'll have to agree to disagree for now


Originally posted by captainplanet
This is the new world, even if it's older now. We made a government that could not use the people like every other government(that I'm aware of) in history had done. It's worked pretty good to this point.


using old world ideas...
i believe the concept of democracy, a government where the people could not just be used and had a say in things, dates back to classical athens...
so no go there
we just applied it on a large scale first
...and it kind of took a while for us to become a TRULY democratic nation
we spent over 100 years with 50% of the citizenry disenfranchised, among other things.



The more you centralize, the more control the government has, and the less alternatives you have. When there are no alternatives or competition, things always fail.


but i'm not advocating the government eliminating alternatives.
in nations like france with socialized healthcare you have the alternative of getting private healthcare
same goes for malta

oh...and military.
military has been monopolized by government...seems like it has yet to fail



And when people are dependant, they are hurt more by a failure. I think we have certain aspects of our government, that if re-focused on, could sustain us indefinitely, without needing to let the government run the country.


i'm also not advocating dependency, i'm asking for



In a socialistic state, you should have socialized healthcare, but there are alternatives with a free-market. You could let people deduct medical bills from taxes while we pay so much of them, that would be similar. If people could choose any doctor they want, their charges would become more competitive, and so would effective treatments.


do some research into socialized healthcare systems before you speak on them again. it's been replied ad nauseum that people in a socialized healthcare system don't have a choice of doctors
bullhockey!
i'm living in a socialized healthcare system at the moment, i visit whatever doctor i feel like visiting. i've been to a doctor who wasn't all too good, so i went to another one. there is still competition.


There are benefits to having people fight over your money, you need to get the government out of the medical monopoly.


yes...the benefits of capitalist medicine...
like insane profit margins on life saving drugs...
the problem is that people fighting over money stop caring about anything but the money.



Just a general statement, people in California shouldn’t be making decisions for New Jersey(another general statement). Respect for local laws.


but in a sense people in california should be making laws for new jersey if those in new jersey are doing certain things...



Then lets elect someone who will get the ball rolling. It depends on what you’re localizing, some things can be done more easily then others. It wouldn’t be a magic wand that makes all things local, you would have to take things on individually and sort them out that way.


and you'd have to take several presidential terms to do that...



You'd be funding their education, not religion.


but their education would be inherently religious
i'm just saying that you first look at what the kids are being taught before you give them funding to make sure you don't fund religious based education.



If they don't like the methods of public schools, and they pay for them anyway through taxes, then they should be able to get a tax credit for a private school or home schooling. That would make everyone be able to seek alternatives, not just people that can afford it.


they're paying a property tax, not an education tax. the money is indirectly going towards education instead of directly.




The crime plays a major role in the problems people have now. If it wasn't illegal, and we developed a different attitude, they wouldn't get so cut off from their families or stuck in the justice system. If dealing drugs is your first job, and you stick with it, when you’re older and wiser you don’t have the resume to do anything else. If they were doing it legally, at least they’d have business credentials or something. You need to developed a more responsible attitude.


"responsible attitudes" won't stop crack epidemic v2.0, now with more legality...



You could still have state laws.


eh...but that would mean that some states would be open to exploitation by big businesses that want to sell these horribly addictive chemicals...
honestly, the smaller you get, the easier it is for the big guns to influence it.



It’d be cheaper, as you pointed out.


well, not necessarily...it COULD be cheaper...but they'd balance it out with how much the addicts would be willing to pay.



They also wouldn’t have to hide, so they could potentially have jobs.


functional crack addicts?
just saying that makes me feel like i need to check into a psych ward...



Their will always be some thieving addict, but if you don’t outcast them, it wouldn’t be as bad. There wouldn’t be so many criminal drug records crippling careers, encouraging illegal activity.


but the addiction itself is what cripples the individual before the drug charges are placed...

i agree that we should reevaluate how we deal with drug crime by moving towards less punitive measures and more rehabilitation...but legalization would create a whole new set of problems that could make things a whole lot worse than they are now and you wouldn't be able to reverse it once you made that choice



posted on Feb, 22 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



oh...and military.
military has been monopolized by government...seems like it has yet to fail


That's the federal government's job, national defense. They compete with the rest of the worlds militaries and employ competing contractors for development. They shouldn’t be involved in a preemptive strike on a nation that poses no threat to us though.


do some research into socialized healthcare systems before you speak on them again. it's been replied ad nauseum that people in a socialized healthcare system don't have a choice of doctors
bullhockey!
i'm living in a socialized healthcare system at the moment, i visit whatever doctor i feel like visiting. i've been to a doctor who wasn't all too good, so i went to another one. there is still competition.


Ok, but here we can’t do that regardless of socialized healthcare. We have bigger problems in our medical industry and Ron Paul has pushed bills to get the government out of it so more competition can exist. I’m not inherently against socialized healthcare, maybe if we implemented some of Ron Paul’s policies and got the prices down and kept the government out of everything but the bill paying, we could more easily afford it. Increasing competition and reducing prices comes first, and I haven‘t seen how anyone else plans to do that.


yes...the benefits of capitalist medicine...
like insane profit margins on life saving drugs...
the problem is that people fighting over money stop caring about anything but the money.


With free competition, over priced drugs would get undercut. We don’t have free competition. Money is all they need to care about, we care about the rest and spend our money accordingly.


and you'd have to take several presidential terms to do that...


To get the ball rolling? I don’t think so. It’s good to have someone in there who has a good understanding of many issues. Electing someone else wouldn’t help accomplish any localization, so I’m not sure what your point is. It would take time, most things do...


they're paying a property tax, not an education tax. the money is indirectly going towards education instead of directly.


The point is that they’re paying.


i agree that we should reevaluate how we deal with drug crime by moving towards less punitive measures and more rehabilitation...but legalization would create a whole new set of problems that could make things a whole lot worse than they are now and you wouldn't be able to reverse it once you made that choice


The war on drugs hasn’t stopped anyone I know who wanted to smoke crack from doing it. It’s hard to let people screw themselves up, but you can’t stop them. Everyone has complete control of what they put into their body, it’s not the governments job to regulate it, and they’ve proven that they can’t. The answer to irresponsible behavior is not to make it illegal, it’s to promote responsibility. You are responsible for yourself and the things you put into your body, crack heads don’t change that.



posted on Feb, 23 2008 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainplanet
That's the federal government's job, national defense.


and ensuring the general welfare...it's actually in the same sentence as "common defense" there...
i'm going to have to say a lot of the policies ron paul would be against that i would support would fall under ensuring the general welfare.



They compete with the rest of the worlds militaries and employ competing contractors for development.


and you can see what good that "competition" does...
the majority of projects go over-budget, some ridiculously so
the V-22 Osprey started with a budget of $2.5 billion in 1986...it ballooned to $30 billion in 1988
the concept of "competition" flies out the window in certain industries because you simply cannot create it. you can't have an upstart, ma & pa arm's manufacturer.
you can't have an upstart drug company

the only competition in those areas would be companies that are already raking in hundreds of millions



They shouldn’t be involved in a preemptive strike on a nation that poses no threat to us though.


and i completely agree with that
in fact, i think we should entirely disband the active military, with the exception of the national guard
why?
well, it's unconstitutional to keep them...
and i'm sure his plans to use them to "secure the border" wouldn't really be all that popular in the international community. people tend to frown upon amassing troops at a single border.



Ok, but here we can’t do that regardless of socialized healthcare. We have bigger problems in our medical industry and Ron Paul has pushed bills to get the government out of it so more competition can exist.


ok...could you demonstrate to me why competition is going to solve this one?
i'm serious, there should be evidence here to support this particular claim.



I’m not inherently against socialized healthcare, maybe if we implemented some of Ron Paul’s policies and got the prices down and kept the government out of everything but the bill paying, we could more easily afford it.


could you direct me to a few of the bills he's sponsored/cosponsored on the issue?



Increasing competition and reducing prices comes first, and I haven‘t seen how anyone else plans to do that.


well, i'd look at the policies of other nations first and see what worked for them



With free competition, over priced drugs would get undercut. We don’t have free competition. Money is all they need to care about, we care about the rest and spend our money accordingly.


with free competition comes monopolies...
if you're free to compete, you should be free to end up as a monopoly if you're the best, shouldn't you?
now, how would a monopoly benefit the nation?

and...no, seriously, if we only care about the money we're going to have more and more research wasted on erectile dysfunction, hair growth, and other nonbeneficial medicine instead of a focus on less profitable drugs

let me tell you a little story about a well known drug
it's known as penicillin, but when it was first discovered and produced, nobody would touch this near miracle antibiotic because it wasn't profitable
production of penicillin picked up during the great war...because the military needed it for their soldiers...



To get the ball rolling? I don’t think so. It’s good to have someone in there who has a good understanding of many issues.


good, then we won't get ron paul. i've yet to see anyone demonstrate how he has any knowledge of economics to back up his ridiculous policies
the only thing i support that he's demonstrated is a more open federal reserve



Electing someone else wouldn’t help accomplish any localization, so I’m not sure what your point is. It would take time, most things do...


my point is that the president isn't there for that
the congress would be the ones who would create more localization



The point is that they’re paying.


thus doing their civic duty. people who don't have children pay as well as people whose children are long graduated from the system...
the point is that they pay the property tax.
if we gave everyone a tax credit because their children weren't in the school, we wouldn't be able to fund the schools without a ridiculous increase in the taxation of the families who do.
...and it's not like they're paying the equivalent of a tuition at a private school



The war on drugs hasn’t stopped anyone I know who wanted to smoke crack from doing it.


it's stopped people that i know are curious from doing it.



It’s hard to let people screw themselves up, but you can’t stop them.


but you can sure as hell make it a lot harder...



Everyone has complete control of what they put into their body, it’s not the governments job to regulate it, and they’ve proven that they can’t.


but it's the government's job to prevent industries from producing products that are harmful to consumers
legalizing drugs would throw that out the window
so bye-bye food regulations...



The answer to irresponsible behavior is not to make it illegal, it’s to promote responsibility.


yes, let's see how well that's working with tobacco...
it's still a leading cause of death in the nation, even though we're doing more to promote responsibility
now, i'm not saying that we should prohibit what's already legal, but imagine how things would go with crack or meth
it would become a lot worse than tobacco, no matter how much responsibility you promoted



You are responsible for yourself and the things you put into your body, crack heads don’t change that.


ok, but i don't want a crack and meth industry to flourish due to legalization



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



and ensuring the general welfare...it's actually in the same sentence as "common defense" there...
i'm going to have to say a lot of the policies ron paul would be against that i would support would fall under ensuring the general welfare.


It's "promote the general welfare". Apparently different people have different ideas on how to do that.


and you can see what good that "competition" does...
the majority of projects go over-budget, some ridiculously so
the V-22 Osprey started with a budget of $2.5 billion in 1986...it ballooned to $30 billion in 1988


The military doesn't care what they spend, they're tax funded. When corporations can run their own trials and execute traitorous employees and when the military can bankrupt itself, the two will be comparable. Luckily corporations don’t have any real authority over anything, unless the government inhibits their competition.



and i completely agree with that
in fact, i think we should entirely disband the active military, with the exception of the national guard
why?
well, it's unconstitutional to keep them...
and i'm sure his plans to use them to "secure the border" wouldn't really be all that popular in the international community. people tend to frown upon amassing troops at a single border.


If the international community got upset because we took our troops out of other countries and watched our own borders, that would be an unfortunate drama. We need to do something to enforce our laws, they are a joke right now. Immigration reform is the important part, but border patrol would help. We have every right to enforce the laws in our country.


ok...could you demonstrate to me why competition is going to solve this one?
i'm serious, there should be evidence here to support this particular claim.


Why would any business lower prices without competition?

Here are some things he would do to help healthcare:



Health care should not be left up to HMOs, big drug companies, and government bureaucrats.

It is time to take back our health care. This is why I support:

Making all medical expenses tax deductible.

Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.

Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.

Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.

Reform licensure requirements so that pharmacists and nurses can perform some basic functions to increase access to care and lower costs.

By removing federal regulations, encouraging competition, and presenting real choices, we can make our health care system the envy of the world once again.

www.ronpaul2008.com...


It’s the best plan I’ve seen to keep things competitive, drive prices down, and help people pay for healthcare.


could you direct me to a few of the bills he's sponsored/cosponsored on the issue?




I have been the national leader in preserving Health Freedom.

I have introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act, HR 2117, to ensure Americans can receive truthful health information about supplements and natural remedies.

I support the Access to Medical Treatment Act, H.R. 2717, which expands the ability of Americans to use alternative medicine and new treatments.

I oppose legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements.

I also opposed the Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005, which, in section 304, authorizes the forced vaccination of American citizens against small pox. The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations.

www.ronpaul2008.com...



with free competition comes monopolies...
if you're free to compete, you should be free to end up as a monopoly if you're the best, shouldn't you?
now, how would a monopoly benefit the nation?


The simple fact that it exists would mean it was benefiting the nation enough for people to not go to their competitors. The only institution that can run a true monopoly is the government. Unless you have laws or government policies stacked in your favor, you can always slip up and must continue to appeal to your market or loose it to competition.



and...no, seriously, if we only care about the money we're going to have more and more research wasted on erectile dysfunction, hair growth, and other nonbeneficial medicine instead of a focus on less profitable drugs


Those things are petty to you, but to some people they are beneficial, and research can often be applied across scientific fields whenever they learn something new. You will always have organizations and charities dedicated to specific diseases, whether their cures are profitable or not.


let me tell you a little story about a well known drug
it's known as penicillin, but when it was first discovered and produced, nobody would touch this near miracle antibiotic because it wasn't profitable
production of penicillin picked up during the great war...because the military needed it for their soldiers...


That’s why we need to keep people informed about medical research, so they can do things about it. We are better informed today, and should be more informed.


good, then we won't get ron paul. i've yet to see anyone demonstrate how he has any knowledge of economics to back up his ridiculous policies
the only thing i support that he's demonstrated is a more open federal reserve


That’s your opinion, I’ve yet to see anyone demonstrate a better plan or why his wouldn‘t work. He’s been on the economic comity for years and displays a fine understanding, regardless of what you think is ridiculous.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



my point is that the president isn't there for that
the congress would be the ones who would create more localization


The president is there to do his job while preserving, protecting, and defending the constitution, that‘s the oath he takes anyway.


if we gave everyone a tax credit because their children weren't in the school, we wouldn't be able to fund the schools without a ridiculous increase in the taxation of the families who do.
...and it's not like they're paying the equivalent of a tuition at a private school


Your giving them the tax credit so they can afford a competitive education.


it's stopped people that i know are curious from doing it.


You shouldn’t want to smoke it because it’s crack, not because it’s illegal


but you can sure as hell make it a lot harder...


But we don’t, most young people don’t have the same respect for drug laws as your curious friend. The one’s that don’t smoke crack, usually just don’t want to be crack heads.


but it's the government's job to prevent industries from producing products that are harmful to consumers
legalizing drugs would throw that out the window
so bye-bye food regulations...


It’s the governments job to make sure we know it’s poison through advertising regulations and warnings. If you drink bleach, it‘s not a legal issue unless it’s advertised as juice.


yes, let's see how well that's working with tobacco...
it's still a leading cause of death in the nation, even though we're doing more to promote responsibility
now, i'm not saying that we should prohibit what's already legal, but imagine how things would go with crack or meth
it would become a lot worse than tobacco, no matter how much responsibility you promoted


It’s a matter of an individual’s rights and personal responsibility, Uncle Sam‘s not a babysitter. Everyone knows that if you want cancer, you should smoke. People are less inclined to become junkies then they are to risk having lung cancer in 30 years, you can maintain your dignity while being addicted to cigarettes.


ok, but i don't want a crack and meth industry to flourish due to legalization


I don’t want it to flourish and go ignored due to illegalization. I’d like to see people who are going to get high be able to buy cleaner, safer drugs for cheap, instead of crack and meth. These aren’t attractive drugs, the money faceless people make off them is attractive and they get you high for cheap.



posted on Feb, 25 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainplanet
It's "promote the general welfare". Apparently different people have different ideas on how to do that.


indeed




The military doesn't care what they spend, they're tax funded. When corporations can run their own trials and execute traitorous employees and when the military can bankrupt itself, the two will be comparable. Luckily corporations don’t have any real authority over anything, unless the government inhibits their competition.


...the budgeting problem comes when contractors, thriving on opportunism, purposefully mislead the government and then ask for a budget that's 2-10x as big as what they originally said they could pull the job off with.
competition starts with a pointless bidding war here and ends up hurting the taxpayer.



If the international community got upset because we took our troops out of other countries and watched our own borders, that would be an unfortunate drama.


especially the massive war that would break out in korea. does ron paul have a plan that would make sure that blood doesn't get on his hands?
and it's the amassing of troops on the southern border thing...that's kind of an act of war.



We need to do something to enforce our laws, they are a joke right now. Immigration reform is the important part, but border patrol would help. We have every right to enforce the laws in our country.


and we also have to completely rehash our outright racist immigration quota system. northern and western european countries get a disproportionate amount of slots for immigration.
example: southern europe is preferred over eastern europe
malta: population 400,000. 2 slots
lithuania: population 3,500,000. 2 slots

the system is broken and quite the hassle for any potential immigrant.
i've repeatedly heard calls about how all of these illegals should just go through the proper procedure, but the system won't let them through and is insanely difficult to begin with.



Why would any business lower prices without competition?


why would any business lower prices when they're selling something you literally can't live without?




Health care should not be left up to HMOs, big drug companies, and government bureaucrats.


i'll agree with 2 out of 3...but that last one...
why does socialized healthcare work so damn well?



It is time to take back our health care. This is why I support:

Making all medical expenses tax deductible.


again, socialized system > this idea.



Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.


...what regulations?
i'm very wary of those who seek to deregulate without providing specific references



Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.


yes, because doctors are really going to compromise a system that makes them millionaires...



Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.


or maybe we could just ask the french to help us set up a system like their own



Reform licensure requirements so that pharmacists and nurses can perform some basic functions to increase access to care and lower costs.


again, which ones?



By removing federal regulations, encouraging competition, and presenting real choices, we can make our health care system the envy of the world once again.


...or maybe we could actually look at the systems that ARE the envy of the world and get some advice from them.



It’s the best plan I’ve seen to keep things competitive, drive prices down, and help people pay for healthcare.


i've seen a better one, it's called the french system.




I have been the national leader in preserving Health Freedom.

I have introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act, HR 2117, to ensure Americans can receive truthful health information about supplements and natural remedies.


quite the grandiose name for a standard amendment bill, but ok.



I support the Access to Medical Treatment Act, H.R. 2717, which expands the ability of Americans to use alternative medicine and new treatments.


it seems that the data on this one is a bit inaccurate.
H.R. 2717: Hunger-Free Communities Act of 2005
a bill which he isn't a cosponsor of.
hmm...either this is a simple typo or an outright lie
let's hope it's the first.



I oppose legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements.


i find his lack of examples...disturbing
and the FDA has been protecting us from quite a bit. he acts as if they do nothing...



I also opposed the Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005, which, in section 304, authorizes the forced vaccination of American citizens against small pox. The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations.


wow, seems like the good doctor doesn't have any knowledge of epidemiology
how else are we to prevent an epidemic?



The simple fact that it exists would mean it was benefiting the nation enough for people to not go to their competitors.


until it's a true monopoly that can crush competition before it starts.



The only institution that can run a true monopoly is the government.


spare me the libertarian propaganda that's been repeated ad nauseum. the government in a democracy cannot act in this way



Unless you have laws or government policies stacked in your favor, you can always slip up and must continue to appeal to your market or loose it to competition.


unless you're big enough that there is no alternative because you immediately eliminate all competition



Those things are petty to you, but to some people they are beneficial, and research can often be applied across scientific fields whenever they learn something new.


hooray, we're going to cure cancer by learning about erections!
...no, seriously. it's not beneficial in the same way that curing life threatening disease is. this isn't a point of view issue, it's a simple objective issue.

erectile dysfunction drugs most used for recreation vs cures for life threatening diseases...

the first is more profitable but the second is more important.



You will always have organizations and charities dedicated to specific diseases, whether their cures are profitable or not.


but they won't have the colossal amount of money behind them that the profitable ones do.




That’s why we need to keep people informed about medical research, so they can do things about it. We are better informed today, and should be more informed.


...it doesn't matter how informed we are. a company isn't going to put out a product that isn't profitable.

hell, that answer doesn't address the example...



That’s your opinion, I’ve yet to see anyone demonstrate a better plan or why his wouldn‘t work.


his allegations against the status quo are often unfounded...



He’s been on the economic comity for years and displays a fine understanding, regardless of what you think is ridiculous.


so he has a position of authority, that means crap. a guy on the tech comity said that the internet is a series of tubes...


[edit on 2/25/08 by madnessinmysoul]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join