Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

OMG, you actually think you are making a strong case for Ron Paul preserving the environment??

Every point in your list, except the last one, opens the door to the destruction of the environment.

It seems to me that a free-market conservative would have the following plan:

• Eliminate all energy subsidies and tax breaks.
• Eliminate all special breaks, like the Price-Anderson Act.
• Eliminate all government programs that promote one form of energy over another.
• Enforce very strict environmental laws to protect air, water, future generations.
• Let the markets choose the energy winners and losers.

Why is this not Ron Paul's plan? This, it seems to me, is a nearly perfect free-market, conservative energy plan that protects the environment.

 

The only man that tell the truth

 

At least Paul is consistent on his terrible policies

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/ron-paul-tornado-fema-aid-_n_1321690.html



Vote freedom 2012, freedom to die in abject squalor.

 

No Balbie, neither the majority nor the minority should rule over the other. The laws should should be applicable to ALL equally. I think it should be obvious to anyone that today that although everyone has the right to vote, much less than 10% actually control the outcome of our elections, and very few can afford or have the ability to stand for office. The system we have today serves those who govern much more than those who are governed.

Obviously tax cuts favor those who pay taxes much more than those who do not. A free market allows the many to compete with the few, leaving success in the marketplace up to those who make use of the market.

While you perpetually argue against wealth, nothing you've posted would do more than assure that those with wealth would retain their wealth while only inhibiting those who might through their own efforts acquire wealth. Essentially it is the middle classes who stand to lose.

 

56

LOL – wealth doesn’t pay enough so why make it pay at all?
Your other arguments about the effect on the middle class seem like misdirection, you seem to be trying to claim that the middle class are part of ‘wealth’ and so any attack on wealth is an attack on middle class home owners and beleaguered healthcare professionals. The problem is that doesn’t fit in with what is known of wealth distribution in the US. (Try reading posts 404 and 541 for instance)

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
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/

 

56
What I said in post 470 was

Right wing libertarians want a non interventionists foreign policy and to cut military spending. 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.

The right wing libertarian ideology is about cutting ‘government’ and cutting taxation; the military is a large chunk of ‘government’ and a large portion of the taxes raised go to it. Closing the foreign bases and ‘bring home the troops’ would mean a large number of military personnel sitting around doing nothing or being involved in expensive exercises I don’t think it would be long before cuts to personnel would happen. Also your idea of boosting an economy through the use of government – (e.g. government pays troops who then boost economy through spending that money) I’d agree with and applaud (its very Keynesian in outlook), it seems to go against the free market approach normally pursued by right wingers.

 

56

Ron Paul is on record as saying he doesn’t see a role for government in the provision of such things as welfare and healthcare, the cutting or removal of such state provision would make exploitation easier.

Actually history has shown that it doesn’t really matter about the size of a state, shades of good and bad governance can occur in everything from a polis up to an empire.

It seems to me that the problem in the US is a system and culture that allows wealth to have such great power and influence.

As pointed out Indie has, he suggested that wealth should have greater voting rights so it could block the popular vote.

But that aside the problem is that many talk of returning America to how it was under the founding fathers, a dreamy nostalgia for some bygone ‘golden age’, I and others are just pointing out as a antidote to that nostalgia what the reality of those times were.

They talk of what the founding fathers intended but I and others pointed out what they got, which involved limited voting and slavery.

I’m not saying all those that speak nostalgia are wanting the return to limited voting and slavery but that their ideal countenanced those things if people are to look back would it be better to look at those times when the majority of Americans were doing well, such as 1945-70.

Anyway my own view is that the US needs a new constitution for the 21st century.

Its not size its good governance that matters you are blaming ‘government’ when it seems to me that the problem is a system were wealth has gained too much power and influence.

What I’m trying to point out is that the right wing libertarian solution to those problems seems to be to give even more power and influence to wealth.

 

Indie

Again there never has been a ‘free market’ and for the reason set out before there never will.

Free market = plutocratic tyranny.
http://www.hipforums.com/modules/News/showarticle.php?threadid=353336

Again you are playing the same misdirection game as 56 (was a memo sent round?).

The big losers over the past 30 odd years of neoliberalism have been the middle and lower classes whose real term incomes have stagnated or fallen.

As to my ideas for tackling the power of wealth I’ve posted many over my years here but the problem is that many you’ve ignored and others you have said you don’t agree with but have refused to present a counter argument so please can you indicate which ideas of mine you have specifically in mind?

 

Of course it does, and this is a good idea. However the problem is similar to wanting a free market - it's great in a perfect world but can't or shouldn't happen in the real world.

What I mean is, who would possibly write this constitution? It seems to me that any constitution written by our current government would simply result in a more biased system, filled with loopholes and obvious breaks for the wealthy.

 

Yeah, there's no doubt they would fuck it up.

 

LOL – you are probably right but its still a good ideas – tell you what I’ll begin a new thread called -

What should be in new US constitution?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=446249&f=36

And see what ideas pop up

 

Balbie:

And you might also recognize that 'utopia' and 'equality' for all has never existed, and never will.

Perhaps you should spend more time posting content of value rather than trying to denigrate those who disagree with you. While you seem to insinuate that all the rich get richer and all the poor get poorer, while those in the middle are stuck there perpetually. That has not been my experience, nor true of nearly everyone I know. I know some who have become much poorer due to the decisions they have made and many more who have become much wealthier for the same reasons. It really isn't so much about where you start in life, but what you do during your life that makes the greatest difference.

 

Better yet, repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, and demand that all our elected politicians and Supreme Court justices confine themselves to what the Constitution allows, with any changes made with the consent of the governed as originally intended.

 

Balbus I hope you solve the problems in your own country as well as you solve America's

 

That’s not what I said at all, Balbus. I asked a question, as you purport to “expect” and “welcome”, based on circumstances that you and others have so many times claimed the existence of, i.e. that the wealthy pay too little in income tax. Rather than twist, misrepresent and generally ignore what was actually stated, why not answer the question?

I’ll explain again: If the wealthy currently pay too little income tax, they must enjoy an advantage or benefit from that. If they already have such an advantage or receive such benefit, how will eliminating the income tax altogether be of more benefit to them than to those of lower income when the tax on their income is also eliminated? How would the “wealthy” get more benefit than the “majority” if the tax on both were eliminated?

Evading the question by implying your misunderstanding of it is NOT an answer.

LOL. What are you reading?

As I stated, the definition of wealth is problematic. Anyone should be able to understand that I am not claiming that the middle class is a part of wealth. That is, however, exactly what happens when “wealth” is defined by many of those protesting the “disparities” and calling for redistribution. One particular standard of “wealth” used by the OWS movement, if applied, puts large percentages of “middle class” into the “wealthy” category simply because they live and work in areas of the country with high costs of living and inflated real estate values – their “high incomes” are of little relevance since their cost of living is also very high. Still, according to the definitions or standards touted by some, they are “wealthy”.

In reality, the “middle class” isn’t a part of “wealth”. But too many times possessions, such as real property, that members of the middle class have accumulated are used to define “wealth” when such possessions actually produce no income and may actually be taxed annually.

I’ve already read your post 404 and 541. I’d bet that you sometimes record your own voice solely for the purpose of listening to it later.

 

Yes, you did say that, followed by:

That’s a nifty little tactic – the very subtle implication that I misquoted you.

Again, bringing US troops home is NOT the same as cutting military personnel.

The principle of cutting spending and taxation is well understood by many – although apparently and unfortunately by too few. The military is a “large chunk” of government – in terms of money spent, about 20% (+ or - depending on which year one looks at) of US federal expenditures. More is spent on both social programs and healthcare – about the same is classified as “discretionary spending”.

You obviously understand little about the US military: rather than “sitting around doing nothing”, US troops, when not deployed and not training, are tasked with maintenance of equipment and buildings, assisting with civil infrastructure projects, and providing community services.

So, you think training exercises are more expensive than actual deployment. HA. Not even close. In the US, we have LARGE military bases – training exercises do not involve our forces tear-assing around the countryside causing damage and destruction to civilian property which must be paid for. We do sometimes use live ammo for such exercises, but the expense is nowhere near that incurred as the result of expended munitions, destroyed equipment, etc. involved in actual combat or live support circumstances. Personnel cuts might eventually become a reality, but your examples are simply more exaggerated claims to support your flawed ideas.

LOL The idea of boosting the economy through use of government is not my idea. I already know it won’t work.

Again, you’ve demonstrated how little you know (particularly) of the US military. Do you actually believe that US personnel stationed in Afghanistan spend any substantial amount in country? Pfft. Near all of military paychecks are paid to dependents here at home – our troops are required to make such arrangement prior to deployment. Re-stationing our troops at bases here in the US would boost the local economies by increasing the demand for civilian services in support of those bases, not because servicemen and women are spending their paychecks – that money is still used by military dependents (households) even when the service member is deployed.

The businesses started or relocated to provide support of military bases within the US is a free market system. Only when such bases are created and operated for the purpose and intent of boosting the economy would the concept be “Keynesian”.

 

How, exactly? By whom?

Dependence on government does make exploitation easier – by the government.

I can agree with that, but it’s also certainly true that bigger government creates more opportunity for undue, unfair, and/or corrupt influence and thus bad “governance”.

As an example: Suppose a civilian contractor working on a government project deals with the government though an agency comprised of 50 staff members. Is it more likely that the contractor can find one of the 50 who is willing to provide some sort of advantage or that such an individual could be found within a staff of only 5?

An extreme example but the same principle applies to most circumstances.

Isn’t it the same in all cultures? Doesn’t wealth have influence in the UK? In tribes of the Serengeti? It has and always will be so. Government interference – social engineering – has not changed that for the better.

The US has a system and culture that allows many freedoms including owning one’s own business and one’s own home, living where one wishes, pursuing a career of one’s own choosing, and many more. Our constitution does not guarantee happiness – only the right to pursue it. The problem is that so many believe the government should provide happiness without their having to pursue it and at the expense of others who have put forth the effort of pursuit.

I’m not sure “indie” make such a suggestion and based on your record, I’m not taking your word for it.

What you “and others” seem to ignore is that “those times” were more of a time when everyone was expected to provide for themselves and not rely on government for fulfillment of so many of their desires.

Voting and slavery were a matter of states rights and the issue has since been rectified.

1970. That’s about the time the “great society” results stared to kick in and more and more stared to believe they were entitled without having earned anything. Many Americans are doing well now. Many of us who believe in hard work and sound fiscal practice seem to be doing quite well without government help or bailout.

Thankfully, you don’t have a vote on the matter.

I’m not "blaming" anyone. I'm opposed to big, sorry, lousy, bad government. Government that has grown so big that, many times, it functions only for the sake of itself – a government that has grown so big that it cannot be anything except bad for it no longer governs by permission of the governed but on the whim of the governing.

I will not disagree that wealth has too much power and influence. My stance is that big government has provided the path for gaining such power and influence and that such power and influence can only be curtailed by a reduction in the power of government.

I repeat: You can go on and on with your “good governance” rhetoric for an eternity. It will not change the indisputable truth that anything and everything gets more troublesome and prone to problem as it gets bigger and more complicated – government is not and never has been any different.

And I’m pointing out that “right wing libertarian” is a gross misnomer. I don’t believe the two terms can be accurately used together by any sensible person.

And again, I’m asking, “how will smaller government provide more power and influence to the wealthy?”

 

Ron P is the real deal thats why the establishment wont let him win... watch big news.. his name is hardly ever mentioned and they try their hardest to ignore him and treat him like there isnt a chance he can get close to winning even though hes actually in second behind romney.. but on news all you will hear about is mitt rom and rick sant because big america wants romney to win and rick is obviously far behind so they treat him like the number 2 choice

 

56

No need to explain again I got it the first time – you think that wealth already has great power so your solution to that is to make them even more powerful.

Eliminating income tax does not affect everyone equally the higher you go the more you get but the less you ‘need’ it.

Lets make it easy and say a 10% across the board –

100=10
1000 = 100
10,000 = 1000
100,000 = 10,000

1,000,000 = 100,000

10,000,000 = 1,000,000
100,000,000 = 10,000,000
1,000,000,000 = 100,000,000

Up to a 100,000 the sums you get back are not that great, I mean the “average price of a new car — $28,929 including financing, according to Comerica Bank's latest Auto Affordability Index”. Now the average wage in the US is around $40,000

But once you step over ten million you are getting a good return but you probably are less likely to really need it. And a billionaire gets a hundred million dollars that will buy a lot of lobbying.

The power of wealth in US society has always been great (the political system was set up for that) but its power and influence has grown with the lowering of the tax rates.

Fall in top rate tax 1945 - 94%,1970 – 70%,1982 - 50%,1990 - 28%,
2010 – 33%
And as pointed out

Fall in Capital Gains tax 1979 -35%, 1978 – 28%, 1981 – 20% 1987 – 28%, 1997 – 20%, 2003 – 15%

 

56

Funny thing is that you then go on to claim just that. Claiming that some middle class according to the definitions or standards touted by some, would be defined as “wealthy”.

So you don’t argue with my point that right wing libertarians are very likely to use any money saved for tax cuts (that would mainly favour wealth).