Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Well, golly gee, now we finally have some of Ron Paul's ideas to talk about.

Cutting military spending-a very good thing. The US spends half a trillion dollars on 'defense' a year, which is a huge contribution to the national debt-most of this spending is unnecessary, as is our involvement in these little wars of adventure around the world, which have made the US and the rest of the world a less safe place to live-this would make many people 'redundant', as you Brits like to put it-then they can be retrained to work in the private sector, and maybe there will actually be a private sector to work in, if we don't keep outsourcing all our manufacturing overseas.

Cutting taxes wouldn't just help the rich-cutting taxes stimulates the growth of the economy and consumer spending. I live in Eastern Europe, and the income, sales, and medical insurance taxes are an enormous burden on the poor and middle class, particularly because the common people receive almost nothing back for the taxes they pay.

Ron Paul believes in cutting welfare-well, Mr. Gingrich, when he was Speaker of the House, cooked up the current system where all cash payments that a family receives through TANF has to be paid back-which means that the father of the family is sent a bill for the entire amount, and if he doesn't pay it, they put him in jail, and the federal govt subsidizes his stay in the slammer, which means the local govt makes a big profit off of him-real humane system eh? Would you like to see Newtie elected president? I'll turn in my US passport if that bastard becomes president.

One thing you don't seem to understand about the American system is that these are his ideas-and none of them can be enacted into law without the consent of both houses of Congress-which isn't going to agree to any of them without a lot of modification. It's a give and take system, where a lot of compromise is needed to pass legislation. So nobody needs to get nervous about the country radically changing overnight if he gets elected-he's not a European prime minister that heads a party that votes the way he tells them to. I support a lot more of his policies than I oppose, which is a lot more than I can say for the other candidates-are we supposed to wait until we find a candidate that we completely agree with to support? That's not the way politics works.

 

Indie

I’ve read it and I’ve given my views on the US constitution many times they are a matter of record – I think it should be re-written for the 21st century so that it reflects the changes that have taken place in the world and to rebalance it in favour of the people. You seem to want to drag it back to the 18th century when it very much favoured wealth.

To repeat - What we have at the moment it the equivalent of war, basically a free market ideology promoted by wealth waged a war on the majority of the people.

In the last few years the wealth of a few grew vastly while the incomes of the middle and lower sections of society stagnated or fell.

The ideology set up a system that would inevitably crash but those that had manufactured it either were delusional about it not happening or knew that they wouldn’t be the ones to pay.

Thing is that the forces of wealth have convinced many that it is not its fault but that ‘government’ is to blame and that the thing to do is give even more power to wealth.

After WWII the US’s national debt was up to around 117% of GDP it was brought down in just 36 years less than one generation (by 1981 it was down to 32.5%) until successive right wing and neo-liberal policies (tax cuts and anti-communist military spending) from the 1980 onward increased it cumulating in the profligate spending and tax cuts of the Bush Admin. At the same time the free market ideology (deregulation, hollowing out of manufacturing and a belief that the ‘new’ markets were safe) set up the financial sector for a fall and has caused the debt to rise to around 80-90% of GDP.

The problem isn’t ‘government’ the problem is a right wing, wealth supported, neo-liberal, free market ideology that hijacked the system.

Try - The Decline and Fall of the America Empire: Part One 1945-2011
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=435209&f=36


Fall in top rate tax
1945 - 94%
1970 – 70%
1982 - 50%
1990 - 28%
2010 – 33%
The neo-liberal ‘trickle down’ ideas that counselled low taxation of the rich took hold in the Reagan era and have remained throughout the steeper period of decline.

Rise in top levels of pay
In the 1950’s CEO pay was 25-50 times that of an average worker that has risen to 300-500 times by 2007.
A bigger gap than any other developed nation.

Trade deficit
1960 – Trade surplus of 3.5 billion
2008 – Trade deficit of 690 billion
(The last time the US posted a trade surplus was in 1975)

Decline in manufacturing
1965 - Manufacturing accounted for 53% of the US’s economy.
2004 – It accounted for 9%
The Economist (10/1/2005) stated: “For the first time since the industrial revolution, fewer than 10% of American workers are now employed in manufacturing.”

 

Indie

I haven’t ignored it I’ve actually discussed it many times, I’ve pointed out that even many supporters of rightwing libertarianism bemoan the power of wealth in US society at the moment. But what I and others have also pointed out is that rightwing libertarian idea would give greater power and influence to wealth, criticisms they seem unable or unwilling to address.

I’d love to enter into a debate about reducing the power of wealth, I’ve tried on many occasions, but you and other rightwing libertarian’s refuse to enter into this debate because you refuse to address the criticisms of your own ideas. You are basically saying it’s either your way or nothing and that seems unacceptable especially when you do not seem to have any rational or reasonable arguments to back up your way.

As I’ve said many times I don’t care if someone agrees with me or not in the case of right wing libertarians I’m just wondering why they support and promote ideas they seem incapable of defending from criticism. Do I think that wrong well yes because they are promoting ideas that are deeply flawed and in politics that can be dangerous.

 

Bob

Finally - LOL – so why did you completely ignore my post the first time I posted it some 14 days ago and ignored it again when I re-posted it only 2 days ago?

And hell these are not the exclusive ideas of Ron Paul, they are common on the right – there have been thousands of posts criticising these right wing, neo-liberal and right wing libertarian ideas, if you haven’t noticed them until now you must be doing a very selective reading of the threads on this forum.

 

Bob

Military Cuts

Great reply - you totally fail to address any of the criticisms raised by me in the original post, which I repeated here –

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showpost.php?p=7132841&postcount=471

As I stated I like many other lefties have nothing against defence cuts or opposition to ‘foreign adventures’ I quote – “Now that is also the idea of many on the left, but this right wing approach is based in their ‘small’ government low tax ideology. The left would reallocate any money saved and put it into things like education, training, welfare programmes and healthcare, but those things are disliked even hated by right wing libertarians (and be cut by them as well) and so instead any money clawed back would be given in tax cuts that would mainly favour wealth.”

You admit that this would cause hardship for many individuals’ families and communities but you seem blasé about this your basic answer is similar to that attributed to Marie Antoinette when told the people had no bread and were starving to which she replied “let them eat cake’.

Your reply is basically ‘they can simply work in the private sector’ – this at a time when over 13 million Americans are unemployed with the highest rates of unemployment effecting those in the lower middle and lower levels of society.

Again to quote from by post - If military personnel was cut by half if would mean basically that some one million people would lose their job. Many of those would have dependents, partners, children and relatives, also many businesses and services would be affected by this lose of income.
In many European countries which have smaller military budgets there are welfare systems in place to help people with education, training, healthcare and pensions. In the more militarised US many in the lower levels of society have traditionally looked to the military for such cover (educational scholarships, vocational training, dental and medical care and for many a pension and a rise in social status). In a right wing libertarian US not only would that military avenue to benefits shrink but so would the few state benefits available.


You also say that this would be possible –

But right wing libertarians are basically super-neo-liberals – Ron Paul believes in global free trade based on extreme laissez-faire principles, this would encourage ‘outsourcing’ overseas not reduce it. It is all about trying to force worker in the US to compete with the lowest paid workers on the planet. To bring about a situation were lower level Americans have to live on third world wages while those at the top get the highest first world incomes.

Try reading -

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

 

Bob

Tax Cuts

You are presenting the same ‘trick down’ argument used by every neo-liberal seeking at tax cut for the rich since the 1970’s.

The same ‘trick down’ that with every tax cut saw the incomes of the middle and lower stagnate or fall in real terms while those at the top saw their wealth grow by leaps and bounds.

Where in ‘Eastern Europe’ I can’t make an honest assessment of your claims without knowing.

 

Bob

Benefit Cuts

Yes I know - so can you now address the criticisms of that stance?

 

Bob

But seem unable to defend any from criticism – why are you supporting things that you cannot defend from criticism?

 

Balbie:

The decline of america began in 1913, NOT 1945.

 

You can't really expect the troll to understand what Wilson did, yes?

 

Quite obviously not.

 

Indie

So that it - I’m wrong and you are right - because of what? Because you say so, no argument put, no discussion to be allowed, just you saying so because you are always right?

Come on man – I don’t claim that I’m right or wrong in fact in my first post in the thread The Decline and Fall of the America Empire: Part One 1945-2011I state clearlyFor me it was 1945 I’m not dictating as you are I even go on to say - There are a number of differing views as to when the US’s decline became obvious and they are all right I mean if that is when it became obvious to them.

I’d be happy to here your case but just shouting that you’re right and I’m wrong isn’t putting up a rational argument.

This is the problem with many right wing libertarians they seem to believe they’re right because they are right, even when they can present no rational or reasonable argument to defend their ideas from criticisms that seem to show their ideas are deeply flawed.

 

Dave

Again another right wing libertarian that refuses to put up any rational arguments in defence of his ideology.

OK – lets look at this who is the ‘troll’ the person that on a debating forum is willing to answer questions, address criticisms, explain ideas and give clarification or the person that refuse to do any of that and when asked basically become insulting?

I’ll ask you again why do you promote ideas you seem incapable of defending from criticism?

 

Balbie:

1. The Federal Reserve act - Prior to, the Congress was given the power to coin Money, and to regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin. Money, when gold or silver, had intrinsic value, and was not created out of thin air by a government agency, but instead by the people just like the products, goods, and services that Money was used to acquire. Up until the creation of the Federal Reserve banking system, along with the fiat paper money which no longer is tied to gold or silver, but only to the labors of working Americans, our Money maintained its value with very little change.

2. The 16th amendment allowing the Federal government to tax all citizens directly, rather than distributing the costs of Federal government to each State relative to its population proportion of the Census, created a condition which has allowed the Federal government to take many powers directly away from the States and the people, using the creation of Federal programs which redistribute wealth from one or more States to others, and even worse allows much debt to be incurred in order to eliminate any State from complaining that they are paying more than they are receiving.

3. The 17th amendment virtually eliminates the purpose of the Senate, as they like the house members are now directly elected by the people, and along with item 1 and 2, the desire of the people is to get what they can from the Federal government at the least cost to them directly.

Originally, sovereignty began with the individuals, who through a democratic process elected their representatives in local and State government, an in addition elected their representatives to a seat in the House of the Federal government, with the representatives they elected for their State government determining who would represent the States interest in the Senate, and finally a President chosen by the people.
This was a government system meant to be controlled from the bottom (the people who would be the most sovereign), the States (who were sovereign as allowed by their citizens), and lastly the Federal government (which is responsible and empowered only by what the people and the States have given their consent to as described within the Constitution and its amendments.

Essentially, we (the U.S. citizens) have been living under a gradually increasing Social Democracy for nearly 100 years now, and neither party, Republican or Democrat, is likely to fix any of the problems they have created, so more than looking at which party any candidate belongs to it would behoove us greatly to instead look very closely at the individual candidates.

 

Indie – your reply to the thread

The Decline and Fall of the America Empire: Part One 1945-2011


And your subsequent clarification of that viewpoint I’ve moved over to that thread and will reply to it there -

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=435209&page=10

Yours

Balbus

 

Balbie:
So you did, and I responded, but am not subscribed to that thread as the issue most important today is retaking control of our government.

 

Again to quote from by post - If military personnel was cut by half if would mean basically that some one million people would lose their job. Many of those would have dependents, partners, children and relatives, also many businesses and services would be affected by this lose of income.
In many European countries which have smaller military budgets there are welfare systems in place to help people with education, training, healthcare and pensions. In the more militarised US many in the lower levels of society have traditionally looked to the military for such cover (educational scholarships, vocational training, dental and medical care and for many a pension and a rise in social status). In a right wing libertarian US not only would that military avenue to benefits shrink but so would the few state benefits available.
...................................................................................................

How true. Whole neighborhoods full of ordinary civilians are dependent upon military procurement.

Went to a holiday party out on Long Island, half of the people there were employed in defense and aerospace. in companies like Grumman and Betchel. In Connecticut they have Sikorsky helicopter and The Electric Botyard in Groton where nuclear submarines are built. These are well paid engineers and such.

It is unfortunate that the good wages paid to these folks are consumed by high housing costs and real estate taxes in those localaties, but that's another thread

So now they are closing Fort Monmouth in New Jersey and are moving all of those jobs to Aberdeen, Maryland, and the hand-wringing in Congress over the loss of this goverment spending is something else. Whole communities depend on economic activity driven by Ft. Monmouth.

If The Base is mothballed, all economic activity is lost. Are we able to convert the base to civilian uses? How much of that economic benefit could be replaced by turning over The Base to Civilian/ Capitalistic use?
Can we prevent fraud in apportioning these assets to civilian enterprise?

 

Indie

By giving more power to wealth? I mean the criticisms that you refuse to address is that right wing libertarians like yourself would give more power to a few at the expense of the many.

Just repeating that you are the champion of the people when everything you promote seems to points to the opposite doesn’t work.

 

Balbie:
By taking from government the ability to exercise any powers beyond what the people, through a democratic process, AND the States, 3/4 of, will consent to, as set forth under our Constitution.
At the moment we are faced with making a choice of who might be the best candidate to get us on track to a recovery, and even George Soros admits that Romney would present little change, and while Gingrich and Santorum may lean a little Right of Romney, Ron Paul is the only candidate that seems willing to listen to the people, and govern within the Constitution.

 

Enough,,,,

Let's just fucking fix it already please?