Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Let us imagine a plague, a disease that could affect anyone but will actually end up only affecting half of the population but nobody knows which half. (*)

That is a societal problem.

In such a situation I think most sensible people would want the community’s government to try and do something about it and be willing to pay the taxes to tackle the situation.

Now lets say that half a population are born into disadvantage and half not. But since no one can choose beforehand to which half they are to be born, it basically means disadvantage could affect anyone.

So again it is a societal problem.

The difference is that there is the problem of hindsight, when those born into advantage are taxed to help the disadvantaged, they may not be inclined to go ‘oh I could have been born disadvantaged myself’ they might go ‘why should I help’.

It is like knowing who would be affected by the disease and who not. Some might help out of compassion and for the good of society but others might think ‘I’m all right jack’ and decide it’s none of their business if others suffer something I’m sure they wouldn’t think if they didn’t now they wouldn’t be effected.

(*And I’m not saying disadvantage is a disease, I’m just using the plague idea as an example)

 

Indie

Again you imply that anyone seeking assistance is a lazy, feckless scrounger - once more it comes back to the deserving/undeserving argument I outlined above.

Are you saying you would not help your own child who was in distress? No I think you would, but are you doing it only because it is your child or is it because it is a child in distress? Are you making values about the worth of different human beings?

The problem is that this right wing approach seems to be based not on responsibility but on selfishness and greed, it is about exploitation and getting away with exploitation, and the call for deregulations seems only like an attempt for a few to more easily exploit the many.

Personal responsibility is not about selfishness it is not about putting yourself first or not caring about the suffering of others, it is about taking responsibility for your actions and how those actions may affect others especially if it causes suffering.

Neoliberalist ideas have caused much suffering and right wing libertarianism as many of its critics have shown would most likely cause a whole lot more.

Depends what the ‘financial problems’ are?

LOL – oh you so hurt me – but lets see it would see to me that the thing that fails is your ideology I mean you’ve failed at every turn to defend it from its critics

Oh Indie again with the implication that it is EITHER you extreme of right wing libertarianism OR Communism.

The thing is that many to the left of RP are not Marxists or Communists

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

Sorry I don’t even agree with that - I don’t see things in such black and white terms. Oh it may seem so to someone on the extreme edge of right or left but move away from those and there are shades and merges. Many of my views would be seen as of the right by some on the left and you from the far right see all my ideas as of the left.

 

Indie

You are just reproducing the same old rhetoric that once more fails to address any of the criticisms of your ideas, you grumble and you groan but you don’t seem to have any answers.

Basically it comes down to what your goals are do you want a better world or a worse one.

My goal is to make societies fairer and better to live in, places that give a reasonable opportunity, to all the habitants, of having a healthy and fulfilled life. Places were people are more likely to realise their potential
This seems reasonable and rational because it would seem totally irrational and unreasonable to actually want to live in a society where things were more unfair and many people’s lives were worse.

Your goals then seem very irrational and deeply unreasonable to me because you do seem to want a more unfair society where the potential of the disadvantaged are stifled a place where you would happily let people who have fallen into hardship through no fault of their own suffer or even die from want

 

Balb:

The U.S. is made up of Federal, State, and local governments, but many of the problems that need to be solved are best approached in the reverse order of government, where they exist, where the true facts are most easily obtained, and the costs can be contained and corruption reduced or eliminated.
The numbers don't lie, and simple math shows that when they are ignored you might be able to produce a better world for some for a short period of time at the cost of leaving a worse world for the younger among us and yet born generations. Where is your compassion for those you seem intent to leave holding the bills we are currently unable to repay and continue to run them up?

Federal social program expenditures, not including those of the States and local governments for the decades beginning with 1950 were:
1950's $78.9B
1960's $259.3B
1970's $1.214T
1980's $3.668T
1990's $7.578T
2000's $13.576T
2010-11 $4.179T

 

Indie

Can you please say where you got these figures I’ve googled and they don’t seem to come up.

Oh and you still don’t seem to be addressing what I’ve raised.

I mean the main reason for the large deficit the US has at the moment is the neoliberal ideas that have been followed over the last 30 odd years coupled with a desire for global hegemony.

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

 

Balb:

The figures are from columns off a spread sheet where I accumulate data from numerous sources, CBO, St Louis Federal Reserve, Federal Income Tax booklets showing where the previous years taxes and borrowings were spent, etc.

The social programs I summed were 'Federal' government expenditures on pensions, health care, and welfare only.

Much of what you argue is things that should be tended to at State or local government levels, NOT by Federal government. I think most Ron Paul supporters would agree that he is the only candidate who would TRY to return Federal government to exercising the powers it was given under the Constitution, and not using class warfare, rich vs poor, racism, etc. as a means of purchasing votes by pitting groups of our diverse society against one another, with the campaign costs of spreading social disunity being picked up by those who can afford to contribute large sums which in turn allows them to reap rewards after the elections are over and the voters both majority and minority become irrelevant until the next election.
The laws under which we live currently are too many, leave much to interpretation, and so complex that the so called 'law-makers' themselves are unable to agree on what they say.

 

I don't know about any of the candidates. Some look like they should be selling used cars not running for President! Also I think too many Americans expect "Santa Claus" to get in office- Santa never does and what ever is promised is forgotten as soon as whoever gets in. The Jam summed it up best in the song "Going Underground" check it out. Lyrics fit the times we live in.

 

But Ron Paul wants to change your views and return our country to the way it was. Everything he is saying to get elected is what he will do because it Is what any president should do

 

Indie

In other words you cannot show from where these figures came and how they were calculated?

So not ‘social programmes’ as you seemed to indicate but everything including healthcare, welfare and pensions.

To me such things are very different ‘social programmes’ are specific programmes aimed at specific social problems like drug rehabilitation programmes, re-training programmes etc. Welfare is different and is generally about unemployment, pensions about retirement payments and healthcare is well is about healthcare.

And aren’t some based on contributions, like pensions? In the UK I will get a state pension but that is based on my contributions over the years.

Ok you seem to be arguing that you’d get rid of (or greatly cut back) all these things and give back any money saved in tax cuts?

Sorry but this doesn’t dispel the view that right wing libertarians wish to make society worse for a lot of people while improving it for a few.

*
Social security expenditure as % of GDP (most recent) by country http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_soc_sec_exp_as_of_gdp-economy-social-security-expenditure-gdp

And in this list the US doesn’t even get into the top ten.

*

 

Balb:

Like I said, my figures have come from a good many sources, primarily I try to obtain such info from the government sites or government documents, such as:
www.census.gov
www.irs.gov
research.stlouisfed.org
IRS tax booklets

I think I was quite clear as to how the totals were calculated, but if it needs to be made more clear, (1) My spread sheet contains information gathered from sources such as those mentioned above for each year I can find information made available going back in some cases to before the U.S. acquired Independence. (2) Although some recipients do contribute to some of the social programs they benefit from, not all do. (3) The totals I presented for each decade were calculated by taking the annual figures for each of the 10 years that comprise a decade, such as 1950, 1951,1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, adding them up to acquire the sum total expended over those years by the Federal government, and then adding the totals for each of the 3 Federal programs I mentioned, Pensions, Health Care, and Welfare, for a grand total. Need I explain more?

I can't confirm that drug rehabilitation, or re-training programs are included in any of the categories I presented, and there may be even more social spending that has been omitted, although not intentionally.

You should recognize that even programs in which some or even all participants contribute, eventually become unsustainable if the contributions become less than the distributions. Even the Social Security program was based initially on the fact that many of the contributors would likely never receive distributions, and those who did would only receive them for a short period of time.

I've not argued any such thing other than many, if not all social programs should fall back to the States, eliminating much of the Federal bureaucracy which adds additional costs to running the programs, and less accountability which enhances the possibility of corruption, and the political abuses such programs provide those campaigning for elected and appointed Federal government positions, which ends up giving more power to the rich who fund their campaigns expecting and usually receiving the rewards provided by the candidates they had bought.

You can only live high on borrowed money for so long, and China and Japan are now thinking twice, reducing their desire to acquire new debt from the U.S. government leaving the Federal Reserve to pick up the slack, about 62% I believe is the current figure.

Who in their right mind would strive to be the Nation spending the largest percentage of their GDP on Social programs? This is why I see those on the Left basing their arguments more on emotions, ignoring what is rational, reasonable, and reality.

Having more debt than someone else is not something worth bragging about, and most certainly not something to hold up as a positive role model for others to achieve.

The Federal government has gradually assumed the role of a parent figure, and more beloved because it never wants to say 'NO' we can't afford something.

 

Balb: (And anyone else who is interested in how the Federal government redistributes wealth, some it has along with some it borrows from those working, paying taxes and those yet to be born.)

You might also take a look at:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_spending_by_state.php?year=2009&chart=Z0&units=b&rank=t

AND

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/federal_revenue_by_state.php?year=2009&chart=Z0&units=b&rank=t

I believe 2009 is the most current year they have actual figures for, and following years figures are just estimates at present.

 

Indie

In other words you cannot show from where these figures came and how they were calculated?

Ok you seem to be arguing that you’d get rid of (or greatly cut back) all social programmes, welfare, state pensions and healthcare and give back any money saved in tax cuts? I mean you seem to have argued in the past that the state shouldn’t provide any of these things that it is the personal responsibility of the individual to provide for such things and if they can’t and fall into problems they should even be allowed to die of want.

Sorry but this doesn’t dispel the view that right wing libertarians wish to make society worse for a lot of people while improving it for a few.

 

Coming Soon to a Forum Bored Near YOU!

The Thread That Would Not Die!

Starring Ron Paul & Rick Santorum



I would not vote for Ron Paul because HE IS NOT A CANDIDATE FOR ANYTHING.

 

Balb:

But I did show you where my figures came from, and some of my figures obtained years ago came from government sites, one of which has been moved to a new site, www.fdsys.gov and I haven't checked it for a while to see if everything from the old site has been moved. Check out the sites I gave you, they should contain the info although you may have to open quite a few pages to get all the data. That's usually what I have to do, and then copy and paste it to a spread sheet.

What I've argued is that I would balance and cut the Federal budget to the bone, and leave the money in the State agencies, eliminating the costs of the Federal bureaucracy.
I've been trying to be more clear by prefacing government with the words Federal, State and Local, recognizing that a lot of persons seem to view the United StateS of America as the source of government when in reality the people are meant to be the source as defined in our Constitution.

Your view is of a society while my view is of societies, which tends to eliminate the creation of bubbles which adversely affect all simultaneously, while providing insight to those who are failing by recognizing where they differ from those who are succeeding.

 

-Its easy to point your fingers at Corporations, and say that anything that helps them hurts the rest of us. But I think it's important to understand the crucial role that corporations fill to middle America. The Wall Street Journal has reported that 2.4 million American jobs have been outsourced over the last ten years by only 11 corporations. This is where heavy regulation and taxation has hurt the 99%, and not the 1%. It doesn't hurt their feelings any to send those jobs overseas, but it does hurt the millions of people who have lost their jobs, and the small towns who depend on these factories to employ their residents.

-We are depending way too much on taxes, because spending is OUT OF CONTROL. If the spending cuts were in place that are supported by Ron Paul, then we wouldn't need these taxes. And if his other policies were in effect, encouraging companies to bring jobs back home, then taxing foreign made profits would not be a big issue. Taxation is not the answer, it is efficiency that we should be focusing on.

-Again, taxes aren't the answer. Lower taxes help the poor more than the rich. I don't see how tax cuts can be a bad thing, when you have a budget that allows you to do so. It's when spending remains unbalanced during tax cuts that you have problems.

-the next three points would seem to help everyone. I don't see how they would benefit the wealthy or disadvantage the poor.

-Selling Federal lands could be a sensitive move, depending on who it's sold to and for what reason they want to buy it. We obviously don't want to sell our park land to coal companies. I personally think if all parks were controlled on a local level, efficiency and better upkeep would be the result. If parks were to be sold to the private industry, I think stipulations are in order. A contract limiting what they could do with the land, and enforcing rules to keep the parks parks, and to not be industrialized. These contracts would have to be pretty complicated, and in most cases I think the better option would be to have them controlled by local government. But I think in same cases it would be benificial to have parks owned by organasizations with the right goals in mind.

 

No I have only voted once in my shy of 40 year life, and even if I was Usian I wouldn't vote for 90% of those jackasses.

God anyway I'm a liberal in Europe, compare to Ron Paul I'm a communist.

Besides he's probably the same sort of idiot as Tea party morons, who believe in nothing but themselves and how hard they have it under Hitler.

 

I equate the Tea Party with Occupy. Both movements mean well at first, but dumbasses come in and ruin it for everyone. Neither actually get anything done, they now just seem like a target for the other side to shoot at. I hope one day they will realize that they want the same thing and join together to fight big brother.



I will say that there hasn't been any violence at Tea Party protests....can't say the same about Occupy.

 

Nothing wrong with protest, violent or not, after all all forms of government have been formed on the basis of violence. It might be nice if revolution came on the back of peace, but when does it ever?

 

I would agree with you, had said violence accomplished anything of actual value. Senseless violence is....well....senseless.

 

Either Ron Paul or Obama please. All the other candidates are wow -_-