Why I'm Voting for Ron Paul in 08

Remove all ads!

Well, the government is mostly in the business of redistributing our wealth to the largest American coporations - you know, the ones who need it the most. Did anyone really believe that the War in Iraq had anything to do with something as vague and elusive as the "War on Terror?"

Yes, the whole "welfare for the poor" argument here in the US is nothing more than a cruel hoax, played by the rich for maximum mileage for their own gain at the expense of everyone else.

 

False binary. In 1905 100% of investment did not leave the US. A % of investment is always going to go overseas as it is just good sense (at least in any capitalistic market). However the % of money being sheltered overseas is directly proportional to the tax burden placed upon that capital. We are never going to keep 100% of our $s in the US...nor would we want to, but to maximize our economic growth we need to do more to encourage domestic investment. Our current tax code isn't even neutral, it actually encourages investment abroad.

Actually at the extreme they are, and as you slide the scale of greater and greater burden upon the wealthy in a nation to support welfare the degree of economic growth will approach 0. No government has ever successfully eliminated the wealthy and survived. In this country the wealthy already pay 90+ percent of the tax burden. As it is impossible for a government use tax revenue to create an economy (as has been proven time and time again), every monetary unit confiscated by the gov't reduces economic efficiency.

To promote optimum economic growth this role needs to be minimized as much as possible, as proven above. I am not against welfare of all forms...but welfare needs to be minimized and set up to encourage future independence (something that universal health-care is the exact opposite of, as it creates complete dependence).

Yes, this is a well paved road to hell. Much of what Marx teaches is based upon this philosophy, however government cannot contain itself in this regard, and will take it to the point of creating a complete lack of any wealth, resulting in economic collapse.

Let me give you an example. A sailing ship is marooned on an island with very limited resources. The only food items to survive the shipwreck are a coop of chickens. Now the survivors of this island are able to just get by with what they can gather and the eggs from the chickens. However survivor John just fell out of the coconut tree and broke his leg. Now there is short term reduction in the production of food. What do you do? A capitalist lets a person or 2 starve in order to get back to equilibrium (or to encourage them to work harder to find food). A socialist kills and serves a chicken to make up for the loss of food. Of course then we have a loss of egg production, resulting in the need for the killing of another chicken and so on. Eventually the majority of the people are starving and far more people end up dead than if we had allowed people to suffer to create equilibrium.

Now, who had "the people's" best interests in heart?

You are in the minority in America. If you do not have the right to hold property then you do not have any rights, period. Argue it any way you want, but if the gov't controls property, they control every aspect of your life. Without property the only source of food is the gov't. Without property the only source of income is the Gov't.

Universal health care is a pipe dream in a nation the size of the US. I am not going to try to go into the economics of it here as it would take hours to provide the background and details needed to allow for analysis of the issue. You can believe what you want...but while it will work (somewhat) in smaller nations with higher levels of education and average income, it is not economically feasible in the US where the vast majority of people will receive far more benefits than they ever pay in.

As far as your inability to see the parallel:

The fact is that if you trade freedom for security, and kind of security, you will lose not only your freedom but also you security...another fact displayed throughout history. If you choose to believe that this is otherwise, well I believe you are deluding yourself, but you are free to do so...at least for today.

 

Taxes are a component of a greater whole. There are rather more important components.

Who was arguing that we should eliminate the wealthy?

If your argument is that the wealthy can't bear taxation greater than the current levels, well...I disagree.

Who's disputing this? I'm merely disputing what the proper level of 'minimization' is.

Slippery slope fallacy. The US economy hasn't collapsed in the 60 years since the New Deal.

I couldn't care less about Marx; he makes some cogent points, but that's about it.

I'm not going to address your hypothetical.

Property is still a right in my view. It's merely a right that's superseded by the right to food, shelter, health care, etc. In short, the sanctity of property is important, but less important than the sanctity of life.

The half-dozen economists I know disagree with you. So does all the data I've seen. Which, I suppose, is why you argue that all the data can't be applied to the US.

Because since the US is so large, the lessons of, essentially, every other developed nation don't apply.

I don't find that line of reasoning especially convincing.

The problem with Ben's notion is very simple: when you choose to participate in civilization, by definition you are trading freedom from security.

Unless one wants to argue that all societies are tyrannies, one must concede that this argument is nonsensical.

 

Not to go back too far in the posts here, but I must point out that I can only hope, that one day in the distant future, I will be forced to pay the estate tax at the time of my death. While I do not look forward to my demise, in order to qualify for the estate tax, it means that at the time of my death I was a millionaire - many times over. It means that I was very successful, that I probably enjoyed myself with the money I made, and that my surviving family is going to well provided for long after I am gone. Having to pay an estate tax isn't a burden - it's more like a badge of honor of how much wealth you were able to accumulate.

 

Ron Paul seems to be picking up a little steam. In some ways he is more liberal than most Democrats; in others he's more conservative than most republicans. He seems to be his own man. And that's rare in the "teflon" age of politicians...

He seems a good man, IMHO. I like his ideas....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21516892/

 

Sounds like he wants to take the Governmental controls off the citizenry. Making marriage a religious matter and taking the state out of it is an interesting step...

I just don't know if the people are ready for that kind of change...

 

Wow, Chandos, we agree on something other than music!

This country really, really needs someone like Ron Paul as president. I'm just not sure that the largely brain dead, television addicted, propaganda fed, degenerate, partisan electorate is up to the task. Can you imagine the screams of protest from the scum in Congress as their pork died a horrible death under President Paul's veto pen? It's a beautiful thing to contemplate.

 

I too am more and more impressed with Paul the more I hear from him. I don't agree with all of his stances, of course, but I'd be frightened if I did of anyone. He really is the least full of crap of the current field. I don't think he has a prayer of winning, of course, but man I love that he's in the race and making such a showing! It really is a breath of fresh air.

 

Can someone in this thread help me "get" Ron Paul?

I can't make up my mind whether he's an insane racist completely ignorant of economics or just insane.

also: hahaha

 

A racist? What on earth are you referring to?

 

He wrote some pretty racist stuff in the 90's.

Also, Stormfront members find his policies generally palatable. Hell, the owner of Stormfront even donated $500 dollars to his cause.

 

From what I hear, he actually takes the Constitution seriously. If that make him nuts, then that might be just what the conutry needs...

 

Some quotes from Ron Paul back in '92.

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

[About blacks in DC]"I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

I have no problem with Ron Paul taking the constitution seriously, and I doubt anyone else does, either. What I have a problem with is him being an ignorant racist with such a poor grasp of reality and judgment that he actually thought he was justified in asserting that 95% of black males are "either criminal or semi-criminal".

 

Looking at his political views as a whole it looks to me like he just wants America to go back to the 18th/19th century.

Wait, if he wants to follow the Constitution, wouldn't that entail the whole separation of state and religion thing, something the Founding Fathers were quite keen on? And if that's the case, wouldn't there be no justification for his anti-abortion stance, considering religious dogma wouldn't be viable as political rationale?

 

I'm not even remotely religious and I'm pro-life. You don't need to be religious to consider terminating the life of an unborn child a violation of the unborn child's right to exist, do you?

 

I suppose you have a point. I've never considered a non-religious argument against abortion, mostly since a fetus is about as sentient as a ham sandwich. If you want to discuss this in greater detail I'd be happy to do it over PM, but it's a bit of a derail from the thread subject.

 

I've little problem with a racist, as long as he understands that one's race, sex, class or IQ should never give the right to prerogatives.

A comment on that page: "In 1992 a study by the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives found that 85% of all black men living in Washington, D.C. had at least one arrest, and 42% were then under criminal justice supervision. (Source: USA Today, April 22, 1992.)" If this is true, then he only was 10% off.

 

I just don't think a man who calls black people "politically insensible" and "fleet-footed" would make an entirely suitable leader of the free world.

You're right about prerogatives, though; under free market companies wouldn't have to have quotas for gender/race. They'd also be completely within their power to discriminate on these factors as well, incidentally. Or pretty much do whatever they like. No government intervention, you see.

EDIT: "by far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government." Well, I assume the Elders of Zion control the global flow of fiat currency, so I suppose "Dr." Paul would be against the Israelis.

 

@Clixby

So you don't believe that there is an Israeli lobby in Washington? How do you explain the fact that the United States almost always supports Israel no matter what? What does this support gain for the United States other than the eternal emnity of the Islamic world? What's in it for us? Why do we care so much about this tiny nation when there are many others in the world that we don't give a damn about? It honestly doesn't make any sense to me. Just because one questions our nearly unilateral support of Israel doesn't make one an anti-semite.