It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul: End Obamacare, Abolish the IRS, Eliminate Support for Big Government

page: 4
37
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


u r correct, SS was not meant to be a total
coverage retirement package.

But folks did count on something at the
end instead of the shaft.

Something is better than nothing.




posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 





And how has Mr. Paul been a bigot?


that the thing about when people use that word they are one when they use it.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by inforeal
On domestic Issues Paul is a clown, bigot, and anachronistic. He is one of those delusional libertarians who would trust the rich elite to do what NEVER HAS BEEN DONE IN ANY CIVILIZATION IN HISTORY!


Ahh yet again the left comes in and spews more wrong. Care to give an example of any of those? How about this bigotry you mentioned? Awaiting your proof and links.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Everyone needs to remember that they spent the money so that they don't need to print it. To privatize the program would require a tremendous amount of money being printed. That money would be hugely inflationary so people would start losing purchasing power right away. What was left would quickly be devoured by the wall street gangs.

Then again there could be an argument made that not printing the money and raiding the funds has limited the amount of money in circulation thus leaving us in the economy we are currently in. That said we are where we are, and privatizing SS at this point would be the fastest way to destroy it.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
Everyone needs to remember that they spent the money so that they don't need to print it. To privatize the program would require a tremendous amount of money being printed. That money would be hugely inflationary so people would start losing purchasing power right away. What was left would quickly be devoured by the wall street gangs.

Then again there could be an argument made that not printing the money and raiding the funds has limited the amount of money in circulation thus leaving us in the economy we are currently in. That said we are where we are, and privatizing SS at this point would be the fastest way to destroy it.


That's where his "abolish the Fed" plank comes in. Back money with something valuable and inflation is no longer an issue for the near future.


/TOA



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


i support abolishing the fed and going to a system of 50 "state cental banks" competing with each other lower the prices of goods and services ie money and credit.

i also support abolishing the irs on a similar path tax revenue generated within each state never leaves that state

no state takes from another state and no state gives to any other.

and everyone pays a "fee" to keep the government operational.

no more federal taxes dollars robbed from peter to pay for paul so to speak.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
Are those two programs really more important to you than stopping the bombing of civilians of sovereign nations? Than the erosion of freedom and liberty at every turn? Than imprisoning people for the slightest infractions? I realize that everyone has a pet project, but life is full of compromises.


what happens to us here at home is more important to
me than what happens in Iraq, Libya, Syria or any
other place we're dropping bombs.

This is the mentality a lot of politicians have,
is let's focus on other places first and to hell
with the American people.

I say settle this chit with SS before you tackle
world problems. You have your priorities mixed
up. Social Security was stealing the retirements
of Americans long before any bomb was dropped
in Pakistan.

Home comes first !!!

and this makes twice you have redirected this
conversation away from Social Security.
Why is this ??? You sound just like a
politician who doesn't want to address
this issue.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


Ron Paul in my opinion is the rebranded version of the GOP. Aside from his flirting with the religious right, in particular the Israel loving freedom coalition, he wants to replace the IRS... with what? nothing? There will always be a tax man whether it's under Ron Pauls administration or not. Doing away with the IRS will not do away with the function. The Federal reserve? I'm not for or again the federal reserve...frankly I don't believe eliminating it will do much aside from cutting down a small portion of our deficit.

Don't get me wrong though, I want Ron Paul to become the Republican nominee, and if he wins, it will be more of an opportunity. Eliminate all the safety net programmes, completely deregulate the markets, go crazy. If we didn't lean under the Bush administration, we need to learn from electing an individual like Ron Paul. I assure you, within four years Paulers will either be a) making excuses for him or b) blaming the disaster of this country on Obama.


Hope Ron paulers suceed in getting him that nomination, I really do, because he'll be a complete disaster, and what a way to teach your kids than to show them a demonstration of the consequences of libertarianism.
edit on 10-6-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


Bill Clinton BALANCED THE BUDGET!
GEORGE BUSH BLOW IT BACK UP!
Those are facts, where are your facts?
You dont have any, all you have is dogma, that makes no moral, ethical or common sense.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


as oppose as to the disasters of lberalism and conservatism.

really!



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by The Old American
Are those two programs really more important to you than stopping the bombing of civilians of sovereign nations? Than the erosion of freedom and liberty at every turn? Than imprisoning people for the slightest infractions? I realize that everyone has a pet project, but life is full of compromises.


what happens to us here at home is more important to
me than what happens in Iraq, Libya, Syria or any
other place we're dropping bombs.

This is the mentality a lot of politicians have,
is let's focus on other places first and to hell
with the American people.

I say settle this chit with SS before you tackle
world problems. You have your priorities mixed
up. Social Security was stealing the retirements
of Americans long before any bomb was dropped
in Pakistan.

Home comes first !!!

and this makes twice you have redirected this
conversation away from Social Security.
Why is this ??? You sound just like a
politician who doesn't want to address
this issue.



Sooo...saving hundreds of billions of dollars per year by removing American military installations in 120 or so countries and ceasing wars on 3 (wait...now 4) fronts isn't helping America? Those hundreds of billions are OVER AND ABOVE the defense budget. So instead of spending all of those bags of cash artificially propping up the economies of other nations, they can be spent propping up OUR economy. Think outside of the box of only 16 colors, man!

/TOA



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by The Old American
 


Ron Paul in my opinion is the rebranded version of the GOP. Aside from his flirting with the religious right, in particular the Israel loving freedom coalition, he wants to replace the IRS... with what? nothing? There will always be a tax man whether it's under Ron Pauls administration or not. Doing away with the IRS will not do away with the function. The Federal reserve? I'm not for or again the federal reserve...frankly I don't believe eliminating it will do much aside from cutting down a small portion of our deficit.

Don't get me wrong though, I want Ron Paul to become the Republican nominee, and if he wins, it will be more of an opportunity. Eliminate all the safety net programmes, completely deregulate the markets, go crazy. If we didn't lean under the Bush administration, we need to learn from electing an individual like Ron Paul. I assure you, within four years Paulers will either be a) making excuses for him or b) blaming the disaster of this country on Obama.


Hope Ron paulers suceed in getting him that nomination, I really do, because he'll be a complete disaster, and what a way to teach your kids than to show them a demonstration of the consequences of libertarianism.
edit on 10-6-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)


TLDR version is...what...Obama will be better?

/TOA



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Oh look, a guy heavily invested in, and heavily funded by big pharma wants to end the closest thing to public health care we've ever had. What a non-surprise. oh, he wants to shut down the IRS, too? Soon as he starts working for free. Eliminate support for big government, roughly translated as increase public funding of private industry; Down with big government, up with MegaCorp.


Forcing Americans to purchase health insurance is hardly public health care. To even couch that assertion by saying the "closest thing to..." ignores the Grand Canyon of distance between Obamacare, and a public health care system.

However, you are obviously advocating a public health care system, and if you are, then you are advocating a monopoly, and one controlled by government. So, when you begin by linking Paul with big pharma, you seem to believe that corporatism of the government is preferable to the "private" corporatism, as if such a distinction could even be made. Your brand of corporatism is no better than any other brand of corporatism. Corporatism is a bad idea. Your own language betrays this. You "translate" Paul's position to fit your world view, which apparently is one where only corporatism exists, and only the government, continually expanding just like the universe, can control this beastly artificial creation of corporatism.

Your sarcasm - and all I can do is give you the benefit of doubt and ascribe sarcasm to - claiming that if the IRS were eliminated that he as an elected official would be "working for free", ignores the fact that elected officials were paid prior to 1913 without any problems. The best you can do is hide behind sarcasm, but isn't the intent of such a remark intended to illustrate how necessary the IRS is? Why - why - why - without the IRS how would the politicians get paid?

Your final declaration; "Down with big government, up with Megacorp", pretends that big government didn't create corporatism. All corporations are chartered. They are legal fictions that cannot exist without permission from the governmental body granting the charter. This charter allows government to grant rights to a "person" as defined by Congress, and to regulate those rights, and it is all perfectly Constitutional. It is how government became big, it is how big government came to the conclusion that it could now begin regulating the unalienable and natural rights of actual people, because of equality under the law. Big government determined, in its corporatist idealism, that if corporations can be regulated, and of course they can be regulated, then under equality of the law it is now necessary to regulate non incorporated persons as well.

This is the corporatism that big government is shoving down the throats of Americans, and the more fed up with it the people become, the less effective well crafted propaganda will be....poorly crafted propaganda wont work at all.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
Sooo...saving hundreds of billions of dollars per year by removing American military installations in 120 or so countries and ceasing wars on 3 (wait...now 4) fronts isn't helping America? Those hundreds of billions are OVER AND ABOVE the defense budget. So instead of spending all of those bags of cash artificially propping up the economies of other nations, they can be spent propping up OUR economy. Think outside of the box of only 16 colors, man!


and for the 3rd time
you avoid solving or discussing
Social Security. Pure intentional
deflection !!!

Are you a politician by any chance ???
Are you really Ron Paul in ATS clothing ??

Social Security is a chink in the armor
of Ron Paul.

I hope the Dems don't exploit that
in the debates.

edit on 6/10/2011 by boondock-saint because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 





and for the 3rd time you avoid solving or discussing Social Security. Pure intentional deflection !!!


You can eliminate the Social Security insurance scheme and still honor any obligation of payment to people. It is not required that people keep paying into this system in order for this to happen. It will require taxing something in order to honor this obligation, but this is the good thing about taxation - if such a concept is reconcilable - it doesn't, and in really shouldn't be a tax existing in perpetuity. A tax, either direct or indirect can be imposed to honor this obligation you are asserting, and once that obligation is met the tax can be repealed. The Social Security scheme doesn't need to be phased out, it can be ended tomorrow, and there are ways in which your concerns can be addressed.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


as oppose as to the disasters of lberalism and conservatism.

really!


What Ron Paul is campaigning now is little different to what Reagan and Bush senior did in the past, he is of little difference to other conservatives. Smaller the government, more liberty, essentially you're assuming things will go exactly as he claims them to go once he is elected president. He's another politician campaigning from my view, and hey, the jury is still out, we'll still need to see what he'll actually do if he were to be elected, but I highly doubt he's administration will end up any differently from others. I do believe he's policies will be disasterous, that's my prediction.



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American

TLDR versin is...what...Obama will be better?

/TOA


I don't believe the Obama administration has being transformative. It's ended up in the same manner as a long line of previous administrations. What put me off was Obama's continued support for the Patriot act and his crackdown of medical marijuana. I don't believe his administration is the worst, I'll leave that to rabid hating conservatives who intend to make that stance. I do believe his administration is "typical" of most previous presidential administrations, and depending on where you stand, you'll have a different view. His administration has been unsuccessful in many ways, I make no secretof that. Obama needs to go in 2012 from my view, hence my third party support, but not if it means he needs to be replaced by another republican or libertarian hack, and that includes Ron Paul.

Libertarianism is a fantasty ideology. It only really came to rise in the spot light during the Soviet era, somehow because one political extreme is bad, it makes another political extreme justified. Doesn't make sense to me, things are far more complex than that in reality. Like I said, this country needs to experience the full effects of libertarianism in it's full form, and we need to learn from the consequences, because clearly, judging my the measure of libertarian supporters here, the facts of history are insignificant.
edit on 10-6-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 





Libertarianism is a fantasty ideology. It only really came to rise in the spot light during the Soviet era, somehow because one political extreme is bad, it makes another political extreme justified. Doesn't make sense to me, things are far more complex than that in reality.


No they are not. All law is simple, true, universal, and absolute. What is a fantasy ideology is that there is a distinction between the "laws of science", and the "laws of man". Law is law, and legislation is not law but merely evidence of law. As Alfred Korzybski asserted; "the map is not the territory, the word is not the thing defined." Choosing to ignore the simplicity of law, in order to justify complex legislation is no different than taking a stick to a pond and stirring angrily while declaring you can't see the bottom of the pond clearly.

Law is self evident, legislation not necessarily so. When legislation describes law, it is a codified description of that law, when it does something else it tends to succumb to complexity and what has been passed constantly requires explanation to the unwashed masses as to why it exists. Law is self evident. If it needs to be explained over and over again, one of two things are going on. Either it is not law, or that person you are explaining it to is lacking the necessary mental acumen - which would be nothing more than that of average intelligence - to comprehend the law. For a person of average intelligence, or better, when explanation is required, this is strong evidence that what is being explained isn't law.

Gravity did not come into play just because Newton wrote down a mathematical equation describing it, and an individuals unalienable rights didn't come into play because some politician legislated it so. Rights are not products of a complex world, they are law, and in that, they are simple, true, universal and absolute. The right to self defense belongs to all creatures great and small. Because we as individuals have the right to self defense, it follows that we collectively have the right to come together and form an organization towards that same end. It is one thing to argue that this end is best accomplished by big government is opposed to small government, but is another thing entirely to dismiss natural law, and by dismissing Libertarianism as fantasy, this is what you are doing, in order to support big government.


edit on 10-6-2011 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by The Old American
Sooo...saving hundreds of billions of dollars per year by removing American military installations in 120 or so countries and ceasing wars on 3 (wait...now 4) fronts isn't helping America? Those hundreds of billions are OVER AND ABOVE the defense budget. So instead of spending all of those bags of cash artificially propping up the economies of other nations, they can be spent propping up OUR economy. Think outside of the box of only 16 colors, man!


and for the 3rd time
you avoid solving or discussing
Social Security. Pure intentional
deflection !!!

Are you a politician by any chance ???
Are you really Ron Paul in ATS clothing ??

Social Security is a chink in the armor
of Ron Paul.

I hope the Dems don't exploit that
in the debates.

edit on 6/10/2011 by boondock-saint because: (no reason given)


By saying "there are other issues than Social Security" I'm deflecting? I would say I'm being inclusive. You were the one saying you wanted to run for office yourself. Running on a platform of "Social Security is the largest issue America faces. That other stuff doesn't mean anything!" is myopic. "That other stuff" is the elephant in the room, sir.

/TOA



posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Old American
By saying "there are other issues than Social Security" I'm deflecting? I would say I'm being inclusive. You were the one saying you wanted to run for office yourself. Running on a platform of "Social Security is the largest issue America faces. That other stuff doesn't mean anything!" is myopic. "That other stuff" is the elephant in the room, sir.

make that 4 times
2nd







 
37
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join