Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

The cost of those wars will not be eliminated in my lifetime, and if things were left the way Clinton set them up our debt to everyone would have been payed next year. Social programs can be reset to be made viable for generations to come. And yes jobs are the priority, green jobs in new technologies that will bring our country into the future and help break away from fossil fuels. And China will have its own problems in the near future and probably will not be lending to anyone. No the days of borrowing our future to be some other generations financial burden, Reagans brainchild, are over and its time to start paying our own way.

 

Balbus:

Yes taxes are still too high.

Private sector businesses are entitled, and have every right to pay the executives what they wish and that is a source of tax revenue for the Federal government. The way executives avoid paying taxes is to not draw large salaries, such as the case with Steve Jobs, $2.00, and Warren Buffett, between $100K-$175K, and many others including Bill Gates worth over $50B, but never received an annual income even approaching $1B in a single year.
While you may have gathered some facts that are likely accurate, there are just too many variables being ignored in an attempt to fit with your premises in order to achieve your conclusion.
The trade deficit and decline in manufacturing are not unexpected, with expansion of free trade agreements, developed world environmental concerns and the costs of regulations applicable to manufacturers, wage and salary increases brought about by union contracts, etc. These things have benefited 3rd world countries immensely, attracting businesses to move to where they can operate more freely and profitably, and provide affordable products to consumers back home where the same jobs used to exist. Just what would an Ipod or a notebook computer cost if manufactured 100% in the U.S.A.?

I could care less who gathers how much wealth. Power and influence of wealth need not be tolerated, and that is up to the voters if and only if they will begin to hold their elected representatives accountable for their actions. You will not remove the influence of wealth from government by increasing the authority of the Federal government, and can only reduce it by taking away authority, and keeping it close enough to home that you can act when it is found to be misused. Ron Paul goes further than any other candidate, but still not far enough in my book in reducing the power and size of the Federal government.

 

It took some effort for the Republican congress to get Clinton to come to his senses, and maybe that's what the house should do with Obama, shut down the government until he agrees to compromise and cut spending.
Social programs will soon become unsustainable and beyond the ability to tax sufficiently to enable adequate funding. Just glad I'm not in my 20's today.

 

yes but they won,t let me vote..

 

Indie

Again we’ve covered all this before – could you please stop repeating views that already have outstanding criticisms that you have yet to address.

For example -

As explained to you at length on numerous occasions, this is just a mixture of neo-liberal ideas and propaganda.

Free trade agreements – economic globalisation was a neo-liberal idea and con-game. The majority in the west had leant that unfettered capitalism was harmfully exploitative and worked in favour of the few rather than in the interests of the many. Over many years social regulations were fought for that tried to redress the balance.

The neo-liberal idea was that if they could bring in economic globalisation, they could bypass the long fought for social regulations and other benefited that are in the interests of the many. They idea was that the western worker would from now on have to compete with low pay and limited regulation of the poorest worker on the planet while the few could receive the highest remunerations in the world.

Developed world environmental concerns – Same idea – neo-liberals argued that developed world environmental regulation (that protected people and limited wealth’s exploitation of the environment) had to compete with places that had little or no regulation.

Costs of regulations applicable to manufacturers – Again the same idea western firms must cut things like workplace health and safety regulations because they are competing with places that have little or no workplace health and safety regulations.

Wage and salary increases brought about by union contracts – And same again many neo-liberals are very anti-union because they claim that they restrict a ‘free market’ in labour but it could also be argued that its because they restrict the power and influence of wealth. Anyway as said the idea was that the western worker would have to compete with the lowest paid worker on the planet while the few could receive the highest remunerations in the world.

Try reading Kicking global wealth out of the driving seat
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353922

Globalisation and its discontents’ by Joseph Stiglitz

 

Indie

You claim you are opposed to ‘the influence and power of wealth’ the problem is that as I’ve explained at length and in detail your ideas would not only perpetuate that power but increase the strangle hold of wealth on US society.

Which at best makes your statement that you oppose it disingenuous and at worst an outright lie.

But instead of addressing the criticism of your ideas you evade or just repeat stuff that you know you have been unable to defend.

 

Thats a great model for government, very mature. We cant have our way so we are taking our ball and going home Lol, dont try and work through problems or anything just sit and pout till people stop being so mean to us. There will be plenty of funds for social programs once the other republican failed war, the one on drugs, is ended.

 

Balbus:

Have you any solutions to offer which would resolve the problems as you see them? I find no problems other than government which continually makes problems worse by attempting to produce some form of equality where it does not exist.

People become wealthy by making available things that others want. They recognize the existence of a demand and profit by providing a supply at an acceptable price to the consumers.

Businesses pay their employees wages, and if the wages are inadequate they can refuse the work and look elsewhere for employment.

Those who contribute nothing at all to society are entitled to nothing at all from society, however that is where charity should step in, not government.

If you want to change things you could form a charitable organization, or just start donating to those you feel disadvantaged. Government has shown that it is most effective only in growing the number who are seen to need assistance.

Now haven't we covered this adequately already. I'm unlikely to offer anything you would agree with, and you are unlikely to post anything that I would agree with.

Perhaps it would be best to stick to the thread topics in the future, as I'm becoming quite bored with constant bickering over wealth and who someone was born to.

Currently there are more important areas that require attention, especially with primaries soon to begin. I could care less what kind of government you install in your own country, and perhaps you should focus on the changes you wish to accomplish being implemented in Great Britain, and show us how it is done?

 

You best check your figures once again.

And while the Left likes to credit Clinton in relation to having a balanced budget for 4 years, it occurred as a direct result of the government shutdown.

 

Indie

Only if you think leaving all those criticisms unaddressed and just hanging there is adequately covered….

As I keep telling you I don’t care if you or I agree on anything – I’m wondering why you are promoting ideas you don’t seem able to defend from any level of criticism.

You see it is bizarre, I mean if someone actually believed in a set of ideas wouldn’t they at least try and defend them from criticism?

It would be understandable if you were being paid or some such, I mean an advertiser doesn’t need to believe in the product they are trying to sell. It would also explain why the criticism are not being addressed, an advertiser wouldn’t have the inclination or the knowledge to do so, they’d do exactly what you do, desperately evade while continuing to push the sales pitch.

 

Indie

Only if you think leaving all those criticisms unaddressed and just hanging there is adequately covered….

As I keep telling you I don’t care if you or I agree on anything – I’m wondering why you are promoting ideas you don’t seem able to defend from any level of criticism.

You see it is bizarre, I mean if someone actually believed in a set of ideas wouldn’t they at least try and defend them from criticism?

It would be understandable if you were being paid or some such, I mean an advertiser doesn’t need to believe in the product they are trying to sell. It would also explain why the criticism are not being addressed, an advertiser wouldn’t have the inclination or the knowledge to do so, they’d do exactly what you do, desperately evade while continuing to push the sales pitch.

 

Indie

The thing is that the thread is about the right wing libertarian and neo-liberalist Ron Paul, so it seems fitting to debate the validity or not of right wing libertarian and neo-liberalist ideas.

You promote right wing libertarian and neo-liberalist ideas and you inability to defend them from criticism seem to put question their validity and Ron Pauls platform.

 

All I have promoted is individual freedom, and that includes freedom to succeed or fail, as well as freedom to provide aid to others, without the force of government except where criminal force or actions are applied.

As such, I see nothing that requires defending.

 

Indie

As I pointed out some time about and which you still haven’t addressed –

The neo-liberal ideas that you promote (as does Paul) give more power and influence to wealth which gives them much more freedom to exploit the system and the majority in their own interests through the promotion of neoliberal ideas such as –

1) low or no tax
2) deregulation
3) Little or no welfare
4) Free market/laissez faire based economics
5) Social Darwinist based education, healthcare etc.


In what way does that enhance the ‘freedom’ of the majority?

 

Balbus:

1. I've not claimed there should be NO taxes, only taxation adequate to perform the Constitutionally enumerated functions of government. Additionally, I don't think the Federal government should tax individuals or incomes, and that should be a function of the States alone, as it was originally.

2. Regulations, like all laws, should be minimal, and applicable equally to all.

3. Welfare should not in any way be a function of the Federal government.

4. Nothing at all with a free market, people should remain free to produce goods and services and price them as they wish, and uninhibited by government, free market competition allows consumers to control prices. Competition produces jobs and brings down prices for the consumers.

5a. Parents, not governments or unions, should have greatest control over the schools and what their children are being taught.

5b. Health care, is not a right that all are entitled to, but something that is available with costs like anything else, and the private sector insurance industry allows those who wish to reduce their financial risks by purchasing policies to protect them from unforeseen circumstances. It's a choice of purchasing a policy, saving, or face the consequences of bad decisions.

Freedom is a lack of constraint, the ability to make choices unhindered by others or government, to be responsible and take responsibility for ones actions, to engage in legal pursuits which can make one rich or poor. It has nothing at all to do with outcome, or for that matter income.

Take away governments ability to create laws that can be written to the advantage of some, but not all equally, and wealth would find little ability to influence government.

Nothing at all that you've written indicates that it would reduce the influence of wealth on government, in fact it would likely increase it, and result in reducing the middle classes with minimally improving, if at all the poorest members of society, ending what social mobility that now exists creating a ruling and a ruled class.

Ron Paul could turn the country around if elected, and most all the other candidates would do little more than slow down the certain economic collapse we've been headed toward for nearly 100 years.

 

Indie

All already covered here –

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7054074&postcount=77

And still unaddressed by you - OK if we must - once again -

This is contradicted by your often repeated assertions along the lines that nothing has the right to take from another without the express consent and willingness of the person(s) providing? Not even government.

Effort or Luck? Post 223

Which would mean replacing taxes with voluntary contributions? I’ve begged you to address this apparent contradiction in your thinking but you’ve refused to do so.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7054074&postcount=77

But you do believe in deregulation - that is getting rid of or reducing the number of existing regulations.

So yes - 2) deregulation
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7054074&postcount=77

Also as you have already admitted many of the regulations you would seem to want to ‘deregulate’ would be those that protected the majority of people from exploitation by wealth.

You have stated many times that you believe that if someone falls into hardship, even if it is through no fault of their own or due to circumstances beyond their control; they should be allowed to die of want.
I think that means - 3) Little or no welfare
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7054074&postcount=77

You have stated – “I DO promote a highly competitive free market/laissez faire based economic system”

So yes 4) Free market/laissez faire based economics
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7054074&postcount=77

You also know that there never has been and never will be a ‘free market’ because any move toward it inevitably leads to a wealth dominated system. But that is seemingly what you want and are aiming for.

And I’ve pointed out that this is Social Darwinist and you are not contending that.

So yes - 5) Social Darwinist based education, healthcare etc."
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7054074&postcount=77

Pointed out here –

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7045414&postcount=33

And as I’ve pointed out – that boils down to the Social Darwinist based idea that if someone falls into hardship, even if it is through no fault of their own or due to circumstances beyond their control; they should be allowed to die of want. Something you are not contending.
So again 5) Social Darwinist based education, healthcare etc."
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7054074&postcount=77

 

Indie

But the ideas you promote would in fact reduce freedom by reducing the number of choices open to most people while increasing the choices available to a few. An accusation you refuse to address let alone refute and so must stand.

But the ideas you promote would seem to working toward the opposite, giving wealth much more power and influence so it can even more easily dominate society in its own interests rather than in the interests of the majority. A criticism you refuse to address.

Fine if that is you opinion – the problem is you make statements like this but in the past when I’ve asked you to back them up you have refused.
Thing is that - “As background, it helps to know what has been happening to incomes over the past three decades. Detailed estimates from the Congressional Budget Office - which only go up to 2005, but the basic picture surely hasn't changed - show that between 1979 and 2005 the inflation-adjusted income of families in the middle of the income distribution rose 21 percent. That's growth, but it's slow, especially compared with the 100 percent rise in median income over a generation after World War II. Meanwhile, over the same period, the income of the very rich, the top 100th of 1 percent of the income distribution, rose by 480 percent. No, that isn't a misprint. In 2005 dollars, the average annual income of that group rose from $4.2 million to $24.3 million. So do the wealthy look to you like the victims of class warfare?” Paul Krugman
Basically during the period when neo-liberal ideas (ideas you generally support) have been dominate the social mobility of the middle and lower classes have basically stagnated.
The ideas you promote
1) low or no tax
2) deregulation
3) Little or no welfare
4) Free market/laissez faire based economics
5) Social Darwinist based education, healthcare etc.


Would not only perpetuate that situation they are likely to make it worse. Again an accusation you seem unable to address let alone refute, meaning it still stands.

 

Indie

As I pointed out some time about and which you still haven’t addressed –

The neo-liberal ideas that you promote (as does Paul) give more power and influence to wealth which gives them much more freedom to exploit the system and the majority in their own interests through the promotion of neoliberal ideas such as –

1) low or no tax
2) deregulation
3) Little or no welfare
4) Free market/laissez faire based economics
5) Social Darwinist based education, healthcare etc.


In what way does that enhance the ‘freedom’ of the majority? Or

 

Balbus:

It's pointless to try and communicate with you. We each see life from quite different perspectives and that is unresolvable. Our birth and our deaths are things we have little control over, but the time between is where we need to exercise responsibility to make it the best we can. I don't see that a difficult task to accomplish, especially in the developed world countries.

 

Balbus:

It's pointless to try and communicate with you. We each see life from quite different perspectives and that is unresolvable. Our birth and our deaths are things we have little control over, but the time between is where we need to exercise responsibility to make it the best we can. I don't see that a difficult task to accomplish, especially in the developed world countries.