- #281
Dotini
Gold Member
- 635
- 231
Evo said:It states that it's an ad.
But is it authentic?
Respectfully,
Steve
Evo said:It states that it's an ad.
How often are ads authentic?Dotini said:But is it authentic?
Respectfully,
Steve
Evo said:How often are ads authentic?
Political ads are fiction and spin.Dotini said:But is it authentic?
There are not enough individuals that can help? I do not know that to be true. But there is a 'government' can help? A government that borrows $3B/day?Evo said:And since there are not enough individuals to care for the multitude of citizens that need help? ...
How many individuals would help if it was 100% voluntary? What would they do, pay my rent, my doctor and hospital bills, my food, clothing, etc...?mheslep said:There are not enough individuals that can help? I do not know that to be true. But there is a 'government' can help? A government that borrows $3B/day?
Let's get back on track, WRT to Ron Paul. Does Paul think that every person who has some expendable income needs to adopt a poor person, and to what extent? Demolishing social safety nets would result in sickness, death, and suffering among the poor, the disabled, and the elderly. The idea that taxation=theft has some traction with right-wingers, but it doesn't fly with average people.mheslep said:There are not enough individuals that can help? I do not know that to be true. But there is a 'government' can help? A government that borrows $3B/day?
What do you hope to accomplish with this list of unfounded assertions and strawmen, assuming to speak for all average people? Should I respond "collectivists like Obama are dangerous, IMO", so there?turbo said:Let's get back on track, WRT to Ron Paul. Does Paul think that every person who has some expendable income needs to adopt a poor person, and to what extent? Demolishing social safety nets would result in sickness, death, and suffering among the poor, the disabled, and the elderly. The idea that taxation=theft has some traction with right-wingers, but it doesn't fly with average people.
We all pay taxes in the form of sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, etc... These are all quite regressive, since poorer people pay a large portion of their incomes in those taxes. "Libertarians" like Paul are dangerous, IMO. We can't afford to abolish the Fed, for instance, like he wants to do, but we should be able to keep the Fed from ruining the interest rates of people who save by shoveling free money at Wall Street.
Paul is a slash and burn kind of guy. Not the kind of person we need in the WH.
We pay taxes that go to helping those in need. You're in high school, right?Woopy said:Evo and others, since you guys feel the need to help people so much, why aren't you out there doing it? Go work at a soup kitchen, give a homeless man lunch, something. Just please don't force your will upon the rest of us. If I want to help a man down on his luck, I will do it on my own damn accord.
Evo said:We pay taxes that go to helping those in need. You're in high school, right?
I get the impression that Paul thinks the needy can be taken care of by religious and secular charitable organizations, and state and local governments. But, afaik, history doesn't support that position. Hence, it seems necessary for the federal government to maintain an array of at least basic social services and aid for those who, for whatever reasons, can't provide it for themselves.turbo said:Does Paul think that every person who has some expendable income needs to adopt a poor person, and to what extent?
turbo said:Don't try to reach the clueless, Evo. Most of the people railing against "taxing the rich" will never get to the income level at which they could ever be affected. Right-wing radio is pernicious.
I paid the max SS tax for many of my years of employment, and when I was self-employed, I paid both the employer and employee portions of that tax. I don't begrudge any of that. I doubt that many of the right-wingers posting here have ever gotten into that income range. Lots of posers.
Such posers are probably the foundation for Paul's ground-troops in Iowa. Why? If you break into the Bill Gates income level, you can hire enough lawyers and accountant to protect yourself from all taxation=theft scenarios.
Thanks, I was told to give you a break because you were just a kid.Woopy said:Absolutely not, and I was gone for a few hours because I had to go do manual labor to feed myself and keep gas in my car, among the other myriad of expenses I have. And I don't want you to give me anything either. Once I get through the college hoop and get a career, I won't be having to work with my hands anymore. But in the mean time, please don't assist me, I'm doing fine by myself.
People have paid fortunes in Social Security and Medicare taxes, they are then entitiled to receive money back when they can no longer work.When you rely on the government to take care of you, you become reliant on them instead of reliant on yourself. You are truly free when you can rely on yourself.
From reading a list of his positions on various issues I got the impression that that is what he, eventually, would like to see happen.mheslep said:Paul does not want to completely eliminate the social safety net ...
That's how anybody wanting to abolish the federal social safety net would have to start.mheslep said:... he wants (as a start) to reduce it to levels that are fiscally sound ...
I agree with you that lots of changes can and should be made. What I fear from an extreme libertarian like Paul is that, imo, his ultimate goal would be to abolish the federal aid system(s) altogether. Which, imo, would do much more harm than good.mheslep said:... which the current system is not. It is the current federal entitlement system that will inevitably demolish itself if left to business as usual.
So much for less government. He hasn't exactly had a position of "I don't want the Federal Government to take sides about abortion. That's why I want to leave it to the states. If that leads to abortion tourism, then that's just too bad."He authored the 2003 federal partial-birth abortion ban. He supported another federal law to give legal rights to infants born alive after failed abortions, and one that acknowledged unborn children as victims if they are hurt or killed in a violent crime.
lpetrich said:All this "government is bad, government is bad, government is bad" rhetoric suggests something to me: anarchism.
If government is bad, then it should not be trusted to command military and police forces. People would then defend themselves, instead of being lazy about their self-defense and begging the government to defend them with the help of other people's money.
Then, of course, there's states' rights. Some states' rights' advocates seem to love statism when it's the states doing it. If the Federal Government is so evil, then why not dissolve it outright and create 50+ separate nations? Like what happened to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia.
That seems to me like a recipe for economic and political weakness. Would these new nations become dominated by meddlesome foreign powers? Would they end up undoing much of their disunion by forming some regional blocs?
Returning to Ron Paul, he is very willing to be very statist about at least one issue. Abortion. Santorum, Paul Compete To Prove Pro-Life Credentials | Fox News
So much for less government. He hasn't exactly had a position of "I don't want the Federal Government to take sides about abortion. That's why I want to leave it to the states. If that leads to abortion tourism, then that's just too bad."
You realize that Norway completely supports all of it's people, more than the US?Woopy said:If Ron Paul doesn't win the election, it'll give me more reason to move to Norway.
I'll help you pack.Woopy said:If Ron Paul doesn't win the election, it'll give me more reason to move to Norway.
Evo said:You realize that Norway completely supports all of it's people, more than the US?
They have guaranteed pensions, socialized medicine. Didn't know this? The pay for everything even burial. And it's citizens pay very high taxes for this.
:uhh:
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/2010-2011/europe/norway.html
Look at the taxes for the social benefits.Woopy said:You disregarded a portion of my post. I know how it runs, and if that is the will of the people, then let it be. Ron Paul is an isolationist and wouldn't try and interrupt other countries' governments.
Norway works because it has a small population and a huge plot of oil so it can provide these services to its people. Just look at the GDP per capita.
Nobody has said that. You're making a slippery slope argument.Woopy said:I'm not rich, and I may never be. That doesn't mean other people shouldn't be able to be rich.
Turbo never said he was rich. He said he maxed out on Social Security tax. There's a big difference between maxing out on Social Security tax ($106,800 for 2011) and being rich -- even by left wing standards of "rich".It's fine that you're rich. Just don't buy my government.
True. My wife and I live within our means. Maxing out on SS contributions for a few decades does not mean that we are "rich". Staying debt-free and living within our means has left us comfortable. We never spent money on vacations and "luxury" goods.D H said:Turbo never said he was rich. He said he maxed out on Social Security tax. There's a big difference between maxing out on Social Security tax ($106,800 for 2011) and being rich -- even by left wing standards of "rich".
D H said:Nobody has said that. You're making a slippery slope argument.
Turbo never said he was rich. He said he maxed out on Social Security tax. There's a big difference between maxing out on Social Security tax ($106,800 for 2011) and being rich -- even by left wing standards of "rich".
It might be a good idea if you could support that claim. Paul is a Federalist, not a Libertarian, IMO. He would repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because those impinged on the "rights" of southern states to suppress the rights of minorities to have access to voting and public access to public amenities. His newsletters are out there for all to see. He is not fit to be a candidate for the Presidency.Woopy said:Ron paul is a strict constitutionalist, I don't see why people would not be? If you support candidates such as Obama and Bush, you are undermining one of the most important documents in the country.
Oh please. I paid the maximum for the last 20+ years, I'm not rich.Woopy said:It wasn't directed at turbo, it was directed more or less as a general statement for the billionaires of the world.
Ok, that is a blatant falsification of what was being discussed. We were discussing Norway's social programs.To go to Evo's argument, I'm talking about that unconstitutional war known as the invasion of iraq which was caused by apparently us wanting to change the government of another country as well as the ''WMDs"
He lost, even though he stacked the caucus with his supporters, which are mostly "independants".Dotini said:Paul's top tier finish in Iowa guarantees that more open discussion of non-interventionist foreign policy and "Austrian" economics will henceforth feature prominently among Republican candidates, supporters, media punditry and even progressives like Rachel Maddow. He has won a major consciousness breakthrough (victory) for Americans, as we obviously cannot have liberty, peace or prosperity as long as we are broke and fighting. These are the major issues of our times, and now everybody knows it.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
Many of Paul's voters identified themselves as independents, which may prove problematic for the libertarian-leaning congressman as the nomination calendar moves ahead to contests that are open only to Republican voters.
However, that can justify a heck of a lot of statism. What counts as "liberties"? It's not as self-evident as it might seem.DavidSnider said:Ron Paul isn't an Anti-Government anarchist. He has stated many times that he thinks one of the few legitimate roles of government is to protect personal liberty by force. This is not in contrast to his views on abortion either because he believes that an unborn child has human rights.