Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Indie

Well the neoliberal ideas (followed also by right wing libertarians) has greatly increased the wealth and incomes of those in the higher brackets of society while squeezing those in the middle and low, who’ve seen their real term incomes stagnate or fall.

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.

Also the 2003 reduction on capital gains and dividend incomes has also vastly increased the wealth of a few.

Income and wealth disparities become even more absurd if we look at the top 0.1% of the nation’s earners– rather than the more common 1%. The top 0.1%– about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million– are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertl...of-the-nation-earn-half-of-all-capital-gains/

*

Other neoliberal ideas (followed also by right wing libertarians) have helped hollow out US manufacturing and down graded its infrastructure. These things affect the middle and lower classes much more than wealth.

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.”

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)


Infrastructure

In the 1930’s up to the 70’s government sponsored civil infrastructure was being built at an incredible rate. For example the big federal dam programmes like the Hover and Grand Coulee that began as part of the New Deal and Eisenhower’s Federal Aid Highway act of 1956 that has been called the "Greatest Public Works Project in History". And through the period there had been a push to extend the electrical grid and improve the sewage system.

Neglect since the 1980’s (when neoliberal ideas took root) has lead to the situation where in 2009 the American Society of Civil Engineers reported that yet again US infrastructure was in a bad condition.

“More than a quarter of the nation’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Leaky pipes lose an estimated seven billion gallons of clean drinking water every day. And aging sewage systems send billions of gallons of untreated wastewater cascading into the nation’s waterways each year.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/us/politics/28projects.html

Thing is that the lower and middle should not have been squeezed, their incomes should not have stagnated or fallen. The political system should have been investing in manufacturing not allowing speculation and the growth of bubbles, it should have been investing in education and training, it should of being aiming to give a reasonable opportunity to all the habitants of fulfilling their potential and having a healthy and worthwhile life, by investing in people.

Because it didn’t do that and instead followed the waning star of neoliberalism (which turned out to be a burnt of piece of space junk) the prospect for the US and those Americans that are not wealthy could be very hard.

 

YoMama

Oh it could be far worse especially if you let people push the same ideas that got you into this mess.

Thing is that as I told Indie I’m not trying to convince you - I’m just wondering why you are totally unable to address the criticisms levelled at your ideas – but continue to hold them.

 

To me a political system should benefit all the people within society. A political system dominated by wealth is not going to do that it will corrupt the system to serve the few. It will bring about bad governance, bad government.

The problem with right wing libertarians is that they don’t seem to want good governance, or good government, they just hate governments of all hues and in that hatred would hand even greater power to wealth so that it has even greater influence over society and whatever political system that remains.

This is a serious charge and it would be expected that any right wing libertarian would rush to their ideologies defence – but they don’t.

They don’t because the charge it seems is correct.

 

Balbus is so ill-informed it's not even funny. How can people who constantly attack the global banking system and the Federal Reserve -- like myself and others here -- be in favor of neoliberal policies? It's impossible and contradictory. The fact is most neoliberals are Fabian socialists who love the Federal Reserve and government intervention.

What do you define neoliberalism as, Balbus? Nobody on these forums is a neoliberal, except maybe you... and you don't even know it.

 

Sounds like naive utopian hogwash.

 

Keynesian economics got us into this mess.

 

Rat my old mate you’re not going to start one of your Lucifer based conspiracy theory rants again are you? I mean come on man - "most neoliberals are Fabian socialists" - where did that come from?

As to Neoliberalism – try http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?p=7054212&highlight=deficits#post7054212

 

Balbie:

Likewise I'm not trying to convince you that you should accept my views, and I accept that we shall forever remain critical of each others views. All we can do is put forth our views, and I've addressed why I hold my views which unlike yours, would not prevent you and others like you from exercising your views upon others with their acceptance.

 

scratcho:

The question was asked relative to income NOT contributions.

 

Oh Indie you are a laugh

It’s not a matter of you putting forth your views it’s a matter of you being totally unable to defend them from criticism.

And so far the only reason you have given for holding your views is because they’re your views and you hold on to them even when you are totally unable to defend them from criticism.

As to your last couple of lines, I’m unsure what you mean could you please clarify?

 

Balbie:

What you seem to put aside is the fact that humans do not comprise a single society, but many societies.

 

Indie

Oh have I said differently I mean only a few posts above I say – “in any society there are competing interests and powers” – here we are discussing the US and in American society I’d say there are competing interests and powers.

I go on to explain - one of the major themes of political thought has been about this relationship about the best means of balancing the powers and interests within a society to serve the best interests of everyone in it.

As explained you would seem to want to place the balance of power firmly in the hands of wealth by such measures as – the removal of taxes and low taxation – deregulation – the reduction of social programmes and welfare – Free market/laissez faire based economics and Social Darwinist based education, healthcare etc. And again you seem unable or unwilling to address these problems with your ideas.

 

Balbie:

Looking back at your previous post, it would appear that you are incapable of accepting that 'things' are not always what they 'seem' to be, as stated in your opinions.

 

Balbie:

Once again, the U.S. is NOT a single society but many thousands of societies who share some interests in common.

 

Ron Paul is like the moon. I like the notion, am thankful that it causes the tides to come and go, and think it is often a beautiful marvel, but I don't want to live there.

 

Indie

And in what way does this address all those outstanding criticisms of your ideas?

I mean I’m unclear where you are going with this?

Are you claiming that this is the reason why you favour the wealthy group (one of your societies within the society) and wish to increase its power and influence over all the other groups? If so why is that why do you favour wealth rather than trying to help all the groups?

 

Balbie:

I give up on you, it's a total waste of time to argue over the idiotic claims you put forth.

 

No. As it stands now he's more dangerous than any of the candidates for this nation. That being said I am closer in ideals to him than any other candidate. Funny contradiction.

 

The only danger Ron Paul poses is to the establishment politicians, both Republican and Democrat, who we have allowed to manipulate us gradually over the last century into believing that government is more capable than we as individuals are in making decisions for us, which have been very costly.

 

Indie

Who’s the idiot the person that cannot defend his ideas from very damaging criticism but carries on holding them anyway or the person that can?

I mean is it idiotic to say something you can’t explain or to try and understand it, explains what it seems to be implying and ask for clarification?

I mean in the context of this debate can you actually explain what you mean by “the U.S. is NOT a single society but many thousands of societies who share some interests in common”

I am trying to understand – I mean you do seem to favour one grouping, one interest over all the others, wealth, are you someone claiming this is justified because of the American multiplicity of interests and if so why?