Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Bal,

Are you suggesting that the causation of those who are poor is a result of some being rich?

The result of our social assistance programs has been an increase in the number of persons who live on them, feeling that they are entitled to do so. As for those born into poor families, they are afforded the same education as the majority of those born into middle class families, attending the same school systems. Even when I went to school, there were those who came from very wealthy families and those who came from very poor families in the same classroom. It would appear that some of the private schools are doing a much better job teaching than the government schools, and doing so with a much smaller budget, proving that money is not as much the answer to producing good results as is selecting competent and capable teachers.

 

Indie

Again you seem to be thinking in simplistic black and white terms. As I’ve pointed out to you a few times - in the last thirty years or so of neoliberal ideas the incomes of wealth have grown incredibly while the real term incomes of the middle and lower classes have either stagnated or fallen. My problem with your ideas is that rather than improve this situation you seem to want to make it worse.

But as I’ve pointed out just above the idea that unemployment benefits increases unemployment doesn’t seem to hold water.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-co...g-unemployment-benefits-increase-unemployment

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/Programs/ES/BPEA/2011_fall_bpea_papers/2011_fall_bpea_conference_rothstein.pdf

Indie we have been through this several times – here is a reply I gave back in November 2010

School financing in the US, based on local property taxes, cuts down on social mobility with more advantaged parents moving neighbourhoods to get there children into good schools. Also such parents have the resources to afford private tuition for their children, if they are needed.

In her book ‘The Age of American Unreason’ (I’ve recommended it to you before) Susan Jacoby points out that the devolving of education to local authorities meant that “children in the poorest areas of the country would have the worst school facilities and teachers with the worst training”

Basically the US education system is broken –

“In the most powerful nation on earth, one adult in five believes the sun revolves around the earth; only 26% accept that evolution takes place by means of natural selection; two-thirds of young adults are unable to find Iraq on a map; two-thirds of US voters cannot name the three branches of government; the maths skills of 15 year-olds in the US are ranked 24th out of the 29 countries of the OECD”

And we’ve discussed the importance of pre-school learning on school attainment a number of times remember The Spirit Level by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett

As I’ve said the problem to me with your ideas is that they never seem to get much beyond the initial criticism of them.

You make the same statements to which I give the same criticisms and that seems to be as far as you are able to go.

 

But how do you propose improving the situation? For the most part income is a result of productivity and sales.
Are you implying that prior to 30 years ago, I guess you wish to base everything from Reagan, the income of the wealthy grew at a much slower pace. Does the rapid advances in technology not have an effect in much of the wealth creation taking place since the 80's?

Not increase unemployment, but diminish the immediate need to seek employment.
Social programs that pay well above the minimum wage is something that has a great effect in keeping people out of the workforce, or minimally in it to the point that they would lose benefits.

You don't need to move to enroll your child in a private school. I don't know that I could agree with Jacoby, as some of the worst schools are in areas where property and school taxes are very high. Good school are those with good teachers and good curricular with greater Parent involvement rather than government involvement.

Another excellent reason to get Federal Government and Unions out of our school system. Are you blaming the children, who by no fault of their own, are not learning? Perhaps if government put a $100 bill in the pocket of each student they would learn much more?

I'm uncertain what you're definition of pre-school learning is, and if it relates to some government program I doubt seriously I would agree that it has much value other than to create a new or continue the existence of another government bureaucracy to waste the taxpayers money in rewarding cronies of politicians they aided in getting elected.

 

Indie

Remember it is important to know what is being produced and what is being sold, one of the major problems with neoliberal ideas is its emphasis on short term profit, which encourages speculation, rather than what I’d call genuine investment, this creates bubbles and crashes.

This drive for short term profits also has the effect of hollowing out of manufacturing and encouraging ‘outsourcing’ which it also facilitated with deregulation.

“Using the case of the US economy, Crotty argues that financialization has had a profound and largely negative impact on the operations of US nonfinancial corporations. This is partly reflected in the increasing incomes extracted by financial markets from these corporations; trends identified also by Duménil and Lévy and Epstein and Jayadev. For example, Crotty shows that the payments US NFCs paid out to financial markets more than doubled as a share of their cash flow between the 1960s and the 1970s, on one hand, and the 1980s and 1990s on the other...Financial markets’ demands for more income and more rapidly growing stock prices occurred at the same time as stagnant economic growth and increased product market competition made it increasingly difficult to earn profits. Crotty calls this the ‘neoliberal’ paradox. Non-financial corporations responded to this pressure in three ways, none of them healthy for the average citizen: 1) they cut wages and benefits to workers; 2) they engaged in fraud and deception to increase apparent profits and 3) they moved into financial operations to increase profits. Hence, Crotty argues that financialization in conjunction with neoliberalism and globalization has had a significantly negative impact on the prospects for economic prosperity.”
Financialization and the World Economy, editor Gerald A. Epstein

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

And of course – Utopia, no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=328353

 

Indie

Fall in top rate tax
1945 - 94%
1970 – 70%
1982 - 50%
1990 - 28%
2010 – 33%


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.”

In what way, can you please clarify? Are you saying this was different for the US than say Germany?

 

Indie

We’ve been through that the neoliberal ideas are not about seeking full employment as the Keynesian based models are, it is about having unemployment because that is one of the means of driving down wage prices. It is the same reason why neoliberals like you oppose social programmes because their removal would also increase the possibility for exploitation, as in work or starve. I mean you admit that in your model of society you’d be happy for disadvantaged people who through no fault of their own have fallen into hardship to suffer greatly or die of want.

But as I’ve pointed out just above the idea that unemployment benefits increases unemployment doesn’t seem to hold water.

Myth of the Day: Benefits Make People Lazy

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/76001/myth-the-day-benefits-make-people-lazy

Also try

Eight Great Myths About Welfare

 

Indie

So you’ve read Jacoby’s book ‘The Age of American Unreason’?
Here a few points from Do Something http://www.dosomething.org/
School budgets are tied to property taxes. This is why schools in poor neighborhoods get about half as much money per student than schools in affluent neighborhoods.

Three-quarters of the nation's schools (almost 60,000) report needing repairs, renovations or modernization in order to reach good condition.

Not surprisingly, most schools in bad condition are in cities where at least 70% of students are below the poverty line.

Urban students are less likely to graduate than their suburban counterparts. High school graduation rates are 15% lower in the nation’s urban schools when compared with those located in the suburbs.

Now I agree that it is not just the money, work has been done in the US to try and redress the balance been affluent and disadvantaged areas. But educational disadvantage can bred educational disadvantage because one of the most important stages of education happens before a child even gets into the school system (more on that below).

The truth about failure in US schools: Progress is impossible as long as debate about educational underachievement glosses over basic social facts like poverty
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/05/schools-education

We’ve been through this before – a child learns from the moment it is born, and even with the best will in the world the disadvantaged are less likely to have the resources and in many cases the education themselves to help develop that learning. Meaning they cannot afford or don’t see the value of educational tools and activities (reading, books, educational play, educational trips etc). Such children are also likely to live in environments where the value of education is not necessarily seen as worthwhile or encouraged. This means that often children are ill prepared for schooling and find it difficult to adjust to.

However good a teacher is it is much harder for them to teach a child to read from scratch than one that knows the rudiments or can already read at a basic level. It is also easier to teach a child that has leant to learn than one that hasn’t had that experience.

 

Bal,

You continually present what you feel to be problems, which you claim that only you have the answer to solving, as all others who disagree with you only worsen the problem with their neoliberal, conservative, or libertarian based ideas.

As it appears that nothing I or anyone who disagrees with you can dissuade you from your beliefs, so please enlighten us as to HOW government should operate in relation to the society in which it exists?

I might add that at my age I'm very unlikely to to be converted by the best Left leaning/Socialist propaganda available today, but I'm willing to hear you out in your own words. Try to make your case clear and concise, like the creators of the Constitution did.

Personally, I still find the U.S. Constitution to be a timeless document, which although not perfect, still could be used as the basis for the best form of government to have ever been created, if only we could get our elected politicians to abide by it.

 

Indie

This is why I think your ideas are either deeply flawed or useless - because you seem totally incapable of defending them from criticism.

I make no such claims and as you have pointed out I do direct people to others with similar ideas (even if you ignore them yourself).

I take proposals on there merit and form an opinion of them based on there merit. As I’ve repeatedly said ideas like many of yours that can’t be defended against criticism in any rational or reasonable way are probably not very good ideas.

LOL how were you going to change my views with ideas you can’t even defend from criticism?

More laughs – haven’t you been reading my posts? I mean we’ve been talking for about two years.

Since I’ve read your posts I have a rather full view of your thinking on government you really could only be ignorant of mine if you’d not read any of my posts.

TO REPEAT – I’m not trying to convert you I’m trying to work out why you hold onto ideas you seem incapable of defending from criticism.

 

Bal,

Just what am I supposed to be defending my views from? Your claim that they would benefit the rich? I don't view those who accumulate wealth to present a problem as you seem to, and instead have found them to be a major source, if not the only source, of accumulating a little wealth of my own.

If you think you have a full view of my thinking on government, that alone would expose a major flaw in the rationality of your reasoning, as you exhibit an intent not to gather all the facts but only to pick and choose what you can use, more often than not out of context, to perpetuate a long and drawn out argument to which no common ground can ever be found.

Most obvious is the fact that while neither of us can change the others views, neither can we agree on anything as a compromise. So what is the point of our exchanges? I could, I suppose, recommend readings from books or studies written by conservative writers, but as I seldom have found anything written by Liberal/Left/Progressives, including Keynes to move me, I suspect the same would be true of you.

It is senseless to attempt to defend against false claims, and as you persist in making them, I simply ignore them.

As it hasn't mattered who has been elected to government office for over a century, many of us who support Ron Paul or candidates like him do so because we would like to see government run based upon our Constitution, which is not to say that anyone wishes to return to slavery, deny women or minorities the right to vote, but to put the people in the drivers seat by electing representatives who do just that, represent their constituents and not special interests, and govern only where the people have given their consent. The U.S. is NOT a Socialist country, and many if not a great majority are opposed to drifting any further towards the Left than we already have and would like to return back to the Right side of center.

Good government in my view is one that involves itself the absolute least possible in the lives of the individuals who make up the society and societies within the societies, allowing the individuals to work with one another in resolving their problems, while only protecting them from criminal activities or inflicting harm upon others. Complain if you wish, but there's simply too much to detail everything precisely, so just assume correctly that I've omitted much detail intentionally.

 

If we're following the american definition of conservative, it means

you care about guns, a whoooole lot-and ignore the fact that many on the left do, too-myself included (although I'm not sure the left will claim me). You also pretend that obama is running to somehow take guns, despite this NEVER being an issue.

You don't want the government to have anything to do with regulating insurance or medicine, UNLESS it's abortion, then it becomes your business.

You don't want the government to tell you what religion to have, but you want to use the government to enforce your religious standards upon others, such as by refusing to allow gay marriage, or throwing a huge fit because members of whe world's second largest religion want to build a mosque in the same neighborhood as a tragedy that happened a decade before.

You want the government to reel in spending, but only the kind that helps americans-the kind that kills (here or overseas) or is used to repress americans under the guise of law and order is fine.

You're tough on crime, by way of being so maniacal in the creation of laws and crimes that you imprison the kids you're allegedly doing it for.

You believe in personal freedom and the right to think and do what you want, unless it involves consuming plants or chemicals that allow some people to think differently from you-you spend billions locking these people up and turning their neighborhoods into warzones-all for the kids in those neghborhoods, of course.

You demand the president's long form birth certificate (because you can't win in a legitimate debate with him), and when he produces it, shut up for a few months, before resuming paranoid muttering about kenya-you also hold his black supremacist christian preacher against him, all the while maintaining he's a muslim.

You think that freedom is cool and you support the constitution, but constitution just becomes a buzzword for anything you like, because if you like it the constitution MUST support it-and you don't seem to remember that constitution when you vote in favor of things such as the NDAA, which is a blatantly obvious attack on some of the most important parts of the constitution.

You falsify evidence to invade multipule countries looking for one guy, spend billions upon billions toppling regiemes and then install equally violent, slightly more pro-US regiemes in those countries, and at the end of it all, are not interested in catching that one guy-especially when obama gets him. Suddenly bad guy no. 1 was never an issue to you.

Need I go on? Do you really think you're conservative? Are you aware that this is the political party to which ron paul belongs? You have some financial ideas I find odd, but I HOPE you're not conservative, in either the literal or american way.

 

^that is a description of a conservative from the eyes of a blind liberal. I consider myself an American conservative, and I can't relate to any of those things. And I doubt Ron Paul could either. But you're a smart guy so this is probably a sarcastic joke that I didn't get.

Edit: except for his black supremacist preacher. I couldn't care less if hes Christian, Muslim, or whatever else....but when he goes to someone like rev wright for spiritual guidance I see that as a problem. Imagine how Romney would be received if he had such a relationship with a white supremacist preacher. No bueno

 

Well that's sort of my point (the first paragraph)

You considering yourself conservative is like me considering myself liberal, which I admit, I often forget, and say that I am..... but as far as conservativism or liberalism in america, the political wings do NOT repersent the people at all, politics is radicalized around a few hotbutton issues to trash talk each other on, and neither says a word as they hold hands and flush the country down the shitter...... I don't agree with them, and you don't agree with them, and even if we don't agree, we could both work to do SOMETHING that would at least not destroy the country this fast, if it was people like us.

So I think it's important to remember that conservative/liberal tags carry a lot of baggage in the US, and when we say them about ourselves, we tend to be thinking about our own hot-button issue that we agree with them on.

About ron paul, well he says he's conservative, and says he's a republican, and these things make him much harder to take seriously...... he DOES have one of the only clean voting records in US politics, however.

 

Roo,

I really do wish you would go on exposing your convoluted definition of what you think being a conservative is.

1. Guns - The right to own them should never be questioned, limiting only the use to which they are put.

2. Regulations - Federal laws pertaining to regulations should be written simply, clearly, and concisely, requiring the States to define more intricately how they will be applied within their jurisdiction.

3. Religion - Government should in no way involve itself with religion, as long as the practice of that religion does not violate our laws or try to impose upon those of different religion or none at all. But that does not mean religious views should banned from political discussion.

4. Spending - The Federal government above all, should be required to work from a balanced budget, with the only exception being a major catastrophe having effect Nationally, like a war.

5. Crime - Defining what crime is should be a decision of the people, but anything which results in harm to another should be punishable under the law. Consumption of alcoholic beverages is legal, but not to the extent that intoxication can be used as a valid excuse for harming another.

6. Personal freedom - That is the root of freedom in a free country. Again, as long as no harm done or cost is allocated to others, the freedom of the individual to do as he/she wishes should prevail. Freedom is greatest when the fewest limits are placed upon our choices. Government should be involved only in making known the possible consequences that exist in choices we might make, leaving everyone free to make good or bad choices as they desire, but with knowledge that they will bear the responsibilities and/or harmful effects of bad choices.

7. We're stuck with Obama as President until at least 2013, and no matter where he was born or what religion, if any at all, he relates to, I would prefer a new President. If it could be another African American, like Thomas Sowell, J.C. Watts, or another like them I would gladly toss aside Mitt Romney, who in my opinion may only reduce the speed at which we are headed toward total economic collapse.

8. I do support the Constitution, and if our elected representatives would only do the same, some real progress could easily be accomplished both economically and socially.

9. I've not falsified anything at all. And like Ron Paul, think we should remove ourselves from policing the world, and concentrate on protecting only our own country.

10. And yes, I wish you would go on. Am I a Conservative? Yes, but not at all in the way you describe it. Ron Paul is a Libertarian, who ran as a Republican, with little if any support from the Republican party as he would like to bring the Republican party back to right of center as at least one of our parties should be demanding government to restrain itself to only what is allowed by consent of the people within the Constitution.

Odd financial ideas? Like living within your means? I am quite conservative, but in a literal or American way? Obviously not, when applied to your definition.

 

1-obviously-and my point is that no one is questioning them, except the republicans who insist that someone is trying to take their guns. Well okay, balbus questions that right..... And as you might recall, I argued against him, with you, for many pages.

2-obviously. But that has NOTHING to do with what I said, which, if I remember rightly, is that it's highly hipocritical to crow about the government not poking around in medicine, yet opposing abortion, and constantly crowing about changing federal law in that regard, even if they don't do it for fear of losing a talking point. I bet republicans would also have something negative to say about sex change surgerys, but I know nothing of that so I'll say no more. Anyway, is health between doctors and patients, or is it not?

3-Of course I agree with you on this, but political discussion focused on banning things that hurt no one, on "moral" grounds (morals based in religion) has NO place in politics except in a theocracy-to disalow something, it clearly needs to cause harm to someone (and someone other than the person who chooses to do it, in a free country). And republican talking heads consistantly insist that the US is a christian nation, essentially trying to make this a christian theocracy.

And if this IS a theocracy, blows the views of both you and mr. paul strait to hell-there's no reason the government should not enforce the views of god, jesus, and the church, including collections and charity (welfare), and the government should clearly seek to limit gluttony such as accruing massive wealth beyond that necessary to live and worship humbly.

So, I suggest you don't try to mix religion (yours or anyone elses) with politics, or suggest political discussion of legislation based on purely religious ideals.

4-well sure they should, I agree with you-but the republican conservatives (yes, mr. paul aside) do obviously not, they monger war (civil and foreign) and spend ludacris amounts making lives worse-and at the very least, I'd rather this money went to help people, even if it really SHOULD not be taxed or borrowed in the first place.

5-I agree with you, but (again, mr. paul aside, but NOT the party with which he aligns himself) conservative american politicians and other prominent figures do NOT, they constantly seek to criminalize new substances, and are in the process of criminalizing at least a few new ones at this very moment.

I believe in accountability for actions, and if you choose to put yourself into an altered state, that shall not be an excuse for what you do in that state, you ultimately made the choice, from beginning to end. A possible exception exists for people drugged against their will and/or without their knowledge-like the US government has done with projects like MKULTRA, although those people mostly killed themselves..... in those situations, the individual who administered the drug should be held accountable. But anyway, that was conservative americans in the CIA who did THAT.

6-yeah-but american conservatives have shit all over that. And ultimately, having money absolves one of much responsibility of fear of prosecution for far greater crimes than someone with less money (including a standard person who works hard and does fine for themselves) could ever get away with. Frivolous laws do not hurt rich people, they will never be caught, but poor people WILL, and it will prevent them from climbing out of poverty.

7-I have little to say on this, other than that I find it silly to adopt an "anyone but" policy-mitt's a jackass, he's proven himself to be a liar, and generally a dispicable and untrustworthy person, over and over again. Obama is a better choice, even if he's not a GOOD choice.

8-Yeah, but conservatives do NOT support the constitution, as the voting record of nearly every single one (again, not paul, but all his friends) will plainly show. There is a bi-partisan attack on the constitution, and abortion and gay marriage are awesome distractions.

9-I strongly agree. American conservatives do not-once again, the fact that there's a bi-partisan agenda to play world police proves this.

10-I find ron paul running as a republican EITHER a sinister reminder that everybody flips and he would too, OR a great hipocracy on his part.

So, if not according to the literal definiton, (keeping the status quo) and if not according to the republican definition (turning the US into a fascist, capitalist, police state, one corporate prison at a time), then what definition of conservative DO you belive you fall under?

 

Roo,

The preservation of safety, from loss, waste or injury adequately defines conservative for me.

Your response to a degree sums up what I've been attempting to get across. It would appear that there are many issues that we can reach some degree of agreement on, which is where the Federal government should focus attention in achieving. Details where you insert "but..." or "except..." are the areas where the States and their citizens should be allowed to exercise freedom in how to resolve the issues more fully.

More often than not there are many solutions to problems, and when allowed the freedom to choose, everyone benefits from looking at the results in determining which choice(s) work the best in relation to circumstances which can be unique.

 

Signature quotable.

What do you mean by that statement individual?

 

I'm finding it difficult to believe an explanation is necessary, unless of course you might wish to wallpaper a room with money.

I remember using those words, but don't remember exactly what it was that I was responding to at the time. Do you really feel it needs explaining? If so can you provide me with where it was I wrote that?

 

Is Ron Paul's platform identical in all points to the Libertarian platform?
Are some of us misguided in supporting him because we think he is Libertarian?
After all, he is a member of the Republican party, perhaps for expediency, but what if it is because Ron Paul is not really Libertarian in the fullest sense of the word, but simply a Republican with Libertarian tendencies?

 

Ron Paul is too honest a guy to do that. 99 7/8th percent pure...