Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Ron Paul raises $5.4 M in one day!


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Ron Paul raises $5.4 M in one day! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Ron Paul raises $5.4 M in one day! - 12/22/2007 2:44:20 PM   
Stephann


Posts: 4214
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline 		ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

There are several arguments that are valid however...
-Property values would decrease and mortgage debt would increase. The tax benefit of homeownership would disappear and people would have to find a way to finance the sales tax. In a period where the real estate market is on unsteady ground and has an uncertain future.....this is not a good idea to play around with. You could end up making the mortgage crisis much, much worse.

Actually, the suggestion isn't to increase taxes on homeowners; it's to reduce the overall tax burden on the American people.  People already finance steep sales taxes; in California, it's 7.25%.

-Consumer spending would decrease. The price of goods will increase with the added tax making it harder for lower-income people to make purchases.

So lower income people shouldn't carry any tax burden?  As is, their income tax contributions are minimal.  But with the elimination of SSI, someone working minimum wage would suddenly have up to 300$ extra a month to spend on whatever they please.  Keep in mind that SSI and FICA eat up around 13% of minimum wage checks.  It would also remove some incentive for 'under the table' employment.

-How do you fund social security?

Why should we?  It's not the government's job to make sure you save enough for retirement.

Medicare?

Same deal.  To boot, that extra 300$ in a month (on minimum wages) could certainly afford me to visit a clinic once or twice a year if I do get sick.

National defense? Even if you dont have any wars, you still have to raise and maintain an army, Navy, Air Force, border security, coast guard, etc... Without a guranteed flow of cash, you cant maintain these things.

This is a more complex issue, but Paul's ideas are premised on the fact that we shouldn't be supporting a trillion dollar a year military budget.  If we're not stationing millions of troops abroad, and we're not paying for the most powerful military fighting force in the world, and we're not leaping waist deep in the rest of the world's affairs, we present a much smaller target for extremists to attack.  The reason we're a target today, is because we use our military in unacceptable ways.

In seriously reducing the amount of money we pipe into the government, we seriously reduce the amount of money that can be siphoned out by defense contractors, lobbyists, and other parasites.  Currently, our government wastes so much because it spends so much.  When you tell any business it needs to cut it's budget in half, it ends up having to shuck the fat and keep the meat and bone.

I remember well in the Marines, the mantra of "do more with less."  That's what we need to be doing right now.

Stephan

_____________________________

Nosce Te Ipsum

"The blade itself incites to violence" - Homer

Men: Find a Woman here

(in reply to cyberdude611)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Ron Paul raises $5.4 M in one day! - 12/23/2007 12:51:00 AM   
DollysSissyGirl


Posts: 27
Joined: 7/16/2007
Status: offline 		-How do you fund social security?

"Why should we?  It's not the government's job to make sure you save enough for retirement. "

I am not one for universal health care or socilized medicine. Knowing something about the financial world and the habits of Americans in general in terms of savings rates I totally beg to differ on social security. We currently have a whole class of retirees dependent upon social security to make up for roughly 50% of discretionary monthly income. I perosnally would stand to make a considerable amount of money if we allowed Americans to choose where and how to direct there savings. The problem with this is Americans currently have a savings rate which is -1.2 % . In a perfect world the fiscal repsonsibilty would be that of the individual for retirement needs. We both know the world is far from that. On paper that sounds like a grand idea but we simply do not have the diligence as a country to save . I personally know I can invest my SS dollars and make a considerable amount more than the govt would ever make on my behalf. I am a very small minority unfortunately and the majority of the US does not have the knwledge nor the fortitude to take it upon themselves to do it. A perfect example for the middle class is one of the best most advantageous pieces of retirement legislation passed by the late Senator Bill Roth of Delaware. The IRA with all its great adavantages is currently utilized by less than 20% of the country who can contribute. On the other hand 401K 's in this country are utlized by less maximum allowable amount by only 10% of those elegible. Even taking into account only the Fortune 500 companies that offer free money for a minimum contribution only 60% of all particiapants match that consistently on a year over year basis.


Medicare?

"Same deal.  To boot, that extra 300$ in a month (on minimum wages) could certainly afford me to visit a clinic once or twice a year if I do get sick. "

Have you seen the sky rocketing costs of healthcare. Clinics aside that money has to come from somewhere and when it does will be alot more than just $300 as you will have whole classes of individuals lining up that were once covered. In turn this will pressure our healthcare system and drive up the cost simply do to supply and demand.Once sick and assuming that it is for a pro-longed amount of time and you were simply making minimum wage what then, die of the flu because there are benefits made available. In turn you have classes of people not getting help they need for sickness do to the fact they could not afford it. Ultimately that is how diseases and viruses spread readily because they are not contained. This is turn woudl cripple our healthcare system further and worse case scenario start a pandemic killing thousands if not millions.

Your points are valid and of course being on CM I am open minded and appreciative of the friendly think tank environment made available to express and shared thoughts and ideals. When you put his grand plan to paper it just simply has no legs. I so desperately want to support him but his ideas are much more pipe dreams than reality based for my liking. We simply must learn to walk in my opionion before we run. I ultimately think some of his ideas will progressively become fundamentals, just no time soon. Thanks so much for your time, I appreciate and respct your views, facts and opinions.

Season's best,

sissy

_____________________________

m i s t r e s s d o l l y . c o m


(in reply to Stephann)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Ron Paul raises $5.4 M in one day! - 12/23/2007 12:05:00 PM   
subfever


Posts: 2895
Joined: 5/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cyberdude611

There are several arguments that are valid however...
-Property values would decrease and mortgage debt would increase. The tax benefit of homeownership would disappear and people would have to find a way to finance the sales tax. In a period where the real estate market is on unsteady ground and has an uncertain future.....this is not a good idea to play around with. You could end up making the mortgage crisis much, much worse.
-Consumer spending would decrease. The price of goods will increase with the added tax making it harder for lower-income people to make purchases.
-How do you fund social security? Medicare? National defense? Even if you dont have any wars, you still have to raise and maintain an army, Navy, Air Force, border security, coast guard, etc... Without a guranteed flow of cash, you cant maintain these things.


The current tax system is used for social engineering, in addition to keeping people under control. What's so great or moral about a system that rewards some, but punishes others? It is said that nothing instills more fear in people than receiving a letter from the IRS.  This is a good thing?

Fund Social Security? You don't. You slowly phase it out altogther. Of course, we no longer would be indoctrinated by the illusions of being rewarded for going into the highest possible debt either. Instread of seeking to suck on the tits of even bigger government, we would create a level playing field, and return to a world of economic posterity.

Fund the military and national defense? You abolish the privately owned Federal Reserve and the fractional banking system. You then establish a 4th branch of government, which then defines and issues our non-debt money. This money is then spent into the economy, along with spending money into the economy rebuilding infrastructure and other worthy projects... including even a safety net for healthcare for the truly needy. But this net would be built under the new monetary structure, not the existing one.

< Message edited by subfever -- 12/23/2007 12:07:26 PM >

(in reply to cyberdude611)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Ron Paul raises $5.4 M in one day! - 12/23/2007 8:37:18 PM   
Stephann


Posts: 4214
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: Portland, OR
Status: offline 		ORIGINAL: DollysSissyGirl

-How do you fund social security?


I am not one for universal health care or socilized medicine. Knowing something about the financial world and the habits of Americans in general in terms of savings rates I totally beg to differ on social security. We currently have a whole class of retirees dependent upon social security to make up for roughly 50% of discretionary monthly income. I perosnally would stand to make a considerable amount of money if we allowed Americans to choose where and how to direct there savings. The problem with this is Americans currently have a savings rate which is -1.2 % .

Pardon my brief reply, I'm heading out to a party.  I'd suggest that our pathetic savings rate is tightly linked to our goverment having fostered a dependency on Social Security.  Every American currently on SSI had every reason to expect SSI to care for them in their retirement years.  Every working citizen under the age of 40 has every reason to believe that there will be no SSI benefit for them, when they have reached 70.

Medicare?

"Same deal.  To boot, that extra 300$ in a month (on minimum wages) could certainly afford me to visit a clinic once or twice a year if I do get sick. "

Have you seen the sky rocketing costs of healthcare. Clinics aside that money has to come from somewhere and when it does will be alot more than just $300 as you will have whole classes of individuals lining up that were once covered. In turn this will pressure our healthcare system and drive up the cost simply do to supply and demand.Once sick and assuming that it is for a pro-longed amount of time and you were simply making minimum wage what then, die of the flu because there are benefits made available. In turn you have classes of people not getting help they need for sickness do to the fact they could not afford it. Ultimately that is how diseases and viruses spread readily because they are not contained. This is turn woudl cripple our healthcare system further and worse case scenario start a pandemic killing thousands if not millions.

I recently had this conversation, and someone mentioned how when they offered to pay their doctor bill in cash, the doctor lowered the fee by 40%; he said that when he charges health insurance companies, they refuse to pay his full cost.  He's required to bill the company a much higher rate, in order for them to pay him what he feels he needs.

We have inflationary health care costs, because we have a system that is anti-capitalistic.  There is no competition amongst health care providers, because the end consumers are not seeing the actual costs of their benefits.

Shifting medical care to a competitive model means accepting some care will be less than the value of a Rolls Royce; until we accept that we cannot have Rolls Royce care, at Yugo costs, we'll end up with health care that equates with quality verses value.  Those who can afford better quality, will always be expected to pay more.  The fantasy we currently refuse to release, that we all deserve Rolls Royces, when a substantial portion of people cannot even afford their heating bill, is nothing short of self-destructive.

Happy Holidays to you as well,

Stephan

_____________________________

Nosce Te Ipsum

"The blade itself incites to violence" - Homer

Men: Find a Woman here

(in reply to DollysSissyGirl)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Ron Paul raises $5.4 M in one day! - 12/23/2007 9:27:29 PM   
Pavel


Posts: 308
Joined: 1/10/2005
From: Washington
Status: offline 		I'm confused at this whole Ron Paul thing.  He's spoken of in terms usually reserved for the second coming by his followers, while everyone else has little to no clue who he is.

Regardless.  His isolationist stance is somewhat comical.  It feels almost as if he has a terminal, but well intentioned disconnect with reality.  Much of his stance seems to be based on the conclusion that by going backward, we can return to the pre-problem state.  To me, this seems to be as effective as fighting a house fire by taking the roast out of the oven.  Removing the cause, or returning to the pre-left the roast in for a few too many hours state, does not change the fact the kitchen is burning down.

I'm still voting for Robot Jesus myself.  The only thing my major taught me was to discount everything anyone running for office says.  Ron Paul, Clinton, and all the like are just different shades of the same color.  I'm getting sick of the illusion of choice (such as it is, if the mainline republican party was to be bad potato salad, Ron Paul would be expired ludefisk, different, but equally gross).

(in reply to Stephann)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Ron Paul raises $5.4 M in one day! - 12/24/2007 2:29:55 AM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pavel

I'm confused at this whole Ron Paul thing.  He's spoken of in terms usually reserved for the second coming by his followers, while everyone else has little to no clue who he is.

Regardless.  His isolationist stance is somewhat comical.  It feels almost as if he has a terminal, but well intentioned disconnect with reality.  Much of his stance seems to be based on the conclusion that by going backward, we can return to the pre-problem state.  To me, this seems to be as effective as fighting a house fire by taking the roast out of the oven.  Removing the cause, or returning to the pre-left the roast in for a few too many hours state, does not change the fact the kitchen is burning down.

I'm still voting for Robot Jesus myself.  The only thing my major taught me was to discount everything anyone running for office says.  Ron Paul, Clinton, and all the like are just different shades of the same color.  I'm getting sick of the illusion of choice (such as it is, if the mainline republican party was to be bad potato salad, Ron Paul would be expired ludefisk, different, but equally gross).


How is Ron Paul an isolationist?

As far as I've heard, he'd trade with every country. He'd have diplomatic relations. He just wouldn't give them money, or bomb them without a declaration of war. If congress declared war, he has no problem with that. So, you could even have a war on his watch if congress declared war. Very simple. Maybe you don't agree with that, but it isn't isolationist. That term is just incorrect, no matter what fox, cnn, whoever say it. The definition still must hold.

It doesn't bother me so much that some don't support Ron Paul, but rather the mischaracterize of what he actually is. He's a non-interventionist in principle, however, congress can declare war if they select, and he'd execute that declaration to his fullest abilities. So, really, if you break it down, effectively he's against, undeclared wars. Is that really so bad? I think it is a good stance.

I don't address anything else because from your post it sounded like a reference to Iraq.

So, would it have killed us to actually have declared war on Iraq? Would that be so bad? And how does this principle lead to being an isolationist? I don't believe it does.

And I agree an argument could be made for leaving troops in Korea or Iraq(I'm not saying I want that, but at least a reasonable argument can be made). However, what about Europe,and  some other 120+ countries?  Why, have troops in allied countries, that have a strong army, and can fully protect themselves. It makes zero sense. If we were attacked and needed to defend ourselves, England would let us use there airstrips, or germany, france, etc.... If you noticed everyone was very helpful after 9.11, it was just after we went it alone, when the support dried up. We really only need them it appears when we want to attack without cause.

So, it just doesn't add up in my brain. I'm not stupid, every intelligence test I've ever taken has indicated well above average. So, either I'm wrong for lack of information, or your wrong on the same grounds. I've really been looking into this election, even at the expense of my business growth. I'm quite literally nearly obsessed with this election anymore, and read I'd say more than 99% of the public regarding the election. So, what am I missing?

This election has really personally drained me, and it's a year away. I'm quitting politics after this, unless a real candidate, with a real history of consistant positions comes forth again. So, far, really Ron Paul is it. Not Reagan, Not Bush, Not Clinton, Not Bush II. So, I'm good to be apolitical as well for about 30 years if the trend holds.

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that is why everyone is so skeptical of Ron Paul, he's appealing to those that are jaded and maybe at one time believed change was possible. Once bitten twice shy. It's hard to bring people back once they realize, a large section of the country doesn't want to change at all. I'm starting to realize despite all the lip service, the general us citizentry is actually quite into corruption(wealth redistribution, corporate welfare, bailouts, pandering, bribes,etc), war(Iraq, and now Iran rhetoric), and has severe control issues(bases all over the world). I didn't think that even a year ago, but it seems to be true.

God bless the U.S.A.

Actually, I wish he would, I think he's fallen asleep or forgotten us. LOL.


(in reply to Pavel)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Ron Paul raises $5.4 M in one day! - 12/24/2007 8:39:42 AM   
Leonardo


Posts: 113
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline 		I'd be happy if I could raise 1/10% of that amount in one day, or 1% of that amount in a complete election cycle!

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Ron Paul raises $5.4 M in one day! - 12/24/2007 8:44:04 AM   
Leonardo


Posts: 113
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephann

ORIGINAL: DollysSissyGirl

-How do you fund social security?


I am not one for universal health care or socilized medicine. Knowing something about the financial world and the habits of Americans in general in terms of savings rates I totally beg to differ on social security. We currently have a whole class of retirees dependent upon social security to make up for roughly 50% of discretionary monthly income. I perosnally would stand to make a considerable amount of money if we allowed Americans to choose where and how to direct there savings. The problem with this is Americans currently have a savings rate which is -1.2 % .

Pardon my brief reply, I'm heading out to a party.  I'd suggest that our pathetic savings rate is tightly linked to our goverment having fostered a dependency on Social Security.  Every American currently on SSI had every reason to expect SSI to care for them in their retirement years.  Every working citizen under the age of 40 has every reason to believe that there will be no SSI benefit for them, when they have reached 70.

Medicare?

"Same deal.  To boot, that extra 300$ in a month (on minimum wages) could certainly afford me to visit a clinic once or twice a year if I do get sick. "

Have you seen the sky rocketing costs of healthcare. Clinics aside that money has to come from somewhere and when it does will be alot more than just $300 as you will have whole classes of individuals lining up that were once covered. In turn this will pressure our healthcare system and drive up the cost simply do to supply and demand.Once sick and assuming that it is for a pro-longed amount of time and you were simply making minimum wage what then, die of the flu because there are benefits made available. In turn you have classes of people not getting help they need for sickness do to the fact they could not afford it. Ultimately that is how diseases and viruses spread readily because they are not contained. This is turn woudl cripple our healthcare system further and worse case scenario start a pandemic killing thousands if not millions.

I recently had this conversation, and someone mentioned how when they offered to pay their doctor bill in cash, the doctor lowered the fee by 40%; he said that when he charges health insurance companies, they refuse to pay his full cost.  He's required to bill the company a much higher rate, in order for them to pay him what he feels he needs.

We have inflationary health care costs, because we have a system that is anti-capitalistic.  There is no competition amongst health care providers, because the end consumers are not seeing the actual costs of their benefits.

Shifting medical care to a competitive model means accepting some care will be less than the value of a Rolls Royce; until we accept that we cannot have Rolls Royce care, at Yugo costs, we'll end up with health care that equates with quality verses value.  Those who can afford better quality, will always be expected to pay more.  The fantasy we currently refuse to release, that we all deserve Rolls Royces, when a substantial portion of people cannot even afford their heating bill, is nothing short of self-destructive.

Happy Holidays to you as well,

Stephan


SSI = Supplemental Security Income... which is not synonymous with Social Security. SSI is funded by the individual states and not through the FICA deductions on your paycheck.

(in reply to Stephann)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Ron Paul raises $5.4 M in one day! - 12/24/2007 9:09:56 AM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

As far as I've heard, he'd trade with every country. He'd have diplomatic relations. He just wouldn't give them money, or bomb them without a declaration of war.


I think you just defined isolationism. I'm an isolationist. I will happily trade with you. I'll be civil with you, as long as you reciprocate, and I'll even start out civil. You'll probably not get any of my money unless me and mine have no more need for it. And you don't have to worry about me interfering with your life with violence or other forms of force. Which is not to say you will not be a smear on the pavement if you threaten, hurt or kill me or mine.

How is that not isolationism?

To take another example, from a rather vocal thread a while back: I will do trade with India. I encourage good diplomatic relations with them. I think we should put our own countries in order before we give them any foreign aid. And I think we should let them continue to practice sex-selective abortions, despite my strong dislike of the practice. I think they should be allowed to make their own choices on that matter. But if they were to threaten war, or start one, I would endorse any manner of response from the country in question and its allies. This is, again, isolationism.

quote:

He's a non-interventionist in principle, however, congress can declare war if they select, and he'd execute that declaration to his fullest abilities.


Which comes down to respecting the will of the people; a central point of democracy.

quote:

Actually, I wish he would, I think he's fallen asleep or forgotten us. LOL.


Maybe he took offense at the blasphemy of invoking his blessing as a rhetorical device against communism?
Certainly that constitutes "taking the Lord's name in vain," yes?
Perhaps it is not s/he who has forgotten.

Health,
al-Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Ron Paul raises $5.4 M in one day! - 12/24/2007 11:57:42 AM   
Pavel


Posts: 308
Joined: 1/10/2005
From: Washington
Status: offline 		I usually avoid invoking anything religious when it comes to matters of politics.  Not that I'm not religious, or a fan of this country, I just find it a fairly vain affair.  Gott mit uns (please excuse the German, I haven't had to study it for seven or so years) and such.

I wasn't addressing Iraq, however it does provide a handy medium for explaining my objection to Ron Paul. 

What is the American involvement in Iraq?  I know someone is going to quote that line, then write in something along the lines of "A QUEEGMINRE?!?!?! LOLZ" so I'm just going to head that off right now.  It might be relevant to this topic on a whole, but not to my distate for Ron Paul.  Are ongoing operations in Iraq a war?  Is Afganistan a war?  Both involve military forces involved in shooting stuff.  Both involve people dying and all sorts of bad mojo.  But who are we fighting against?  There's no body of poltical leaders to depose.  There's no strategic infastructure to undermine (at least not in the conventional sense).  There's no North Vietnam (although Syria and Iran have contended to be that player on a smaller scale), it's in effect, a throw back to the 1890's with wars of empire (without the intention of lasting conquest). 

So really, what Ron Paul poses is a simple rhetoric trick.  He'll get involved once its something that war can be declared on, which is a very safe statement to make given the cost of conventional conflict, combined with the fact the US has the best deployable military in the world.  Noone in their right mind is going to threaten our interests by using conventional military force in an overt way.  Thus, it can be said he's willing to deploy and engage the enemies of the United States, as long as they play by his rules.

Besides, he also rules out peacekeeping missions (such as the one to the Former Yugoslavian republics), or humanitarian missions (such as the USN/USMC efforts in the aftermath of the Indonesian Tsunamis).  How anyone can call someone who advocates withdrawl from NATO, or the UN anything but an isolationist quite honestly confuses me.

He envisions the United States as a very angry turtle, withdrawing into its shell, safe from all external harm.  However, as the fact of the matter is, turtles remain prey animals, shell or not.  Much as we remain targets, here, or abroad. 

The war is already on.  It's been on since Carter.  The question is if we simply wait around wallowing in the decandence of our culture waiting to suffer, or if we stand alert, ready to stop the next 9-11 (or the next USS Cole, African Embassy bombings, first World Trade Center attacks, Beruit Barracks Bombing, etc, etc, etc).  Ron Paul it would seem is content to wallow not only in the decadence, but in the bonfire of things and places past.

Besides the irony of someone who talks about indivdual rights but that's anti-abortion is enough for me to ignore him.

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Ron Paul raises $5.4 M in one day! - 12/24/2007 12:13:38 PM   
KindLadyGrey


Posts: 358
Joined: 11/6/2007
Status: offline 		The fact of the matter is that a lot of our interventionist foreign policy is incredibly unethical. All that "foreign aid" in our budget is far from altruistic. The complex give and take of aid to other countries is a mechanism of control and extortion, and believe me, we've used it that way before.

Someone correct my history if I'm wrong here, because I'm bad with dates, but here's a good example: Back in the 90s sometime, India started trading with China. At the time, we were giving India lots of "aid." We told them to stop trading with the damn commies, and they told us to go to hell, so we cut their aid more than in half. In response, the Japanese picked up the slack and started sending massive amounts of "aid" to India.

Guess who has greater leverage over India's economy right now? It ain't us.

On one hand, this kind of game is dirty politics. On the other, everyone else is playing it, so it is quite possible that ceasing our own involvement may actually drop us a few rungs on the world ladder of power. This could, in fact, be bad for national security. The same is true for our overseas military bases. Right now, Germany is a big staging ground for the Iraq war. Shutting down our overseas bases would require a serious overhaul of our logistics and tactics.

Ron Paul definitely has the moral high ground on this issue and many others, but the posters who bring up points about the possible negative consequences of these policies are also correct. The fact of the matter is that in order to return to an ethical standard of government, we are all going to have to accept at least a short period of relative crappiness while we remove all the unethical things from our lives and our policies, because it is this unethical policy that has allowed us, as Americans, to live so far beyond our actual means. The same principle applies to the Social Security crisis. We seriously fucked that up, and we can't avoid paying the piper. Americans don't know how to save because we haven't had to learn. Of course it's going to hurt when Daddy takes our credit card away. That doesn't mean he shouldn't take it away if we are abusing it, which we are, and if he can no longer afford to make the payments for us, which he can't.

It's a hard platform to run on, and one of the reasons things never seem to get better. No one is going to vote for a person who stands up and says "Look, we as a country have been incredibly irresponsible, and it is time to start making amends and living more reasonably." Ron Paul is a very smart man, and I am sure he is very much aware that this is the reality of many of his policies. . .but he's trying to get elected, and he can't say that, so instead he focuses on the end goal instead of the painful period of transition between what we are now and what we could eventually be if we embrace more responsible policies. This is what leaves a lot of people going "Yeah, but there's all this horrrible stuff that could happen if we implement those policies. . ." Those people are absolutely right, but just because the road is hard doesn't mean it's the wrong road.

On a tangential note, Roth IRAs are the best things ever. If you are employed at all and don't have one, get thee to your bank/financial advisor/credit union and set one up.

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Ron Paul raises $5.4 M in one day! - 12/24/2007 1:47:06 PM   
NeedToUseYou


Posts: 2297
Joined: 12/24/2005
From: None of your business
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou

As far as I've heard, he'd trade with every country. He'd have diplomatic relations. He just wouldn't give them money, or bomb them without a declaration of war.


I think you just defined isolationism. I'm an isolationist. I will happily trade with you. I'll be civil with you, as long as you reciprocate, and I'll even start out civil. You'll probably not get any of my money unless me and mine have no more need for it. And you don't have to worry about me interfering with your life with violence or other forms of force. Which is not to say you will not be a smear on the pavement if you threaten, hurt or kill me or mine.

How is that not isolationism?

Here's the mighty wikipedia definition.

Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism).

He would declare war if congress voted to, so that is not off the table even, entirely. So, basicly the only thing off the table with Ron Paul, is giving money away. I don't think that qualifies as protectionism. Rather that would be something like high tariffs, subsidies, etc. Now, Ron Paul the person, probably would never vote for a war. But Ron Paul the president is duty bound to go to war when the congress declares war. So, maybe I'm being to general in my references to Ron Paul. As President, the military option would not be off the table, because congress could declare war. He's also not into economic protectionism. He's for free trade, just not managed structured trade like Nafta.

I real only see the lack of foreign aid as the main difference, between now and if he won, and he'd make congress declare wars. It's closer to isolationist than we currently have but doesn't quite meet the criteria, I'm using though.

Definition squabble. LOL.  


To take another example, from a rather vocal thread a while back: I will do trade with India. I encourage good diplomatic relations with them. I think we should put our own countries in order before we give them any foreign aid. And I think we should let them continue to practice sex-selective abortions, despite my strong dislike of the practice. I think they should be allowed to make their own choices on that matter. But if they were to threaten war, or start one, I would endorse any manner of response from the country in question and its allies. This is, again, isolationism.

quote:

He's a non-interventionist in principle, however, congress can declare war if they select, and he'd execute that declaration to his fullest abilities.


Which comes down to respecting the will of the people; a central point of democracy.

quote:

Actually, I wish he would, I think he's fallen asleep or forgotten us. LOL.


Maybe he took offense at the blasphemy of invoking his blessing as a rhetorical device against communism?
Certainly that constitutes "taking the Lord's name in vain," yes?
Perhaps it is not s/he who has forgotten.

Health,
al-Aswad.

I'm actually agnostic, I was just trying to demonstrate my frustation with the system. Like God help us. People just say that, believers and non-believers.

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Ron Paul raises $5.4 M in one day! - 12/24/2007 2:30:07 PM   
Pavel


Posts: 308
Joined: 1/10/2005
From: Washington
Status: offline 		I'm going to sound like a very, very, very bad person, but ethics are a luxury.  I'm not saying to throw them out the window, as much as it may seem to be that way, but look to history, and the present.  Does good triumph just because it is indeed, good? 

It's a dangerous assumption to make that going back to a certain kind of ethics (indeed, what defines ethical behavior?) may only be temporary shift to the not as good while things turn around.

I personally believe that which is indeed good, and indeed worth being right on must be protected by that which is often unethical, or at least not wholly on the straight and narrow.

I took an ethics class on a larf back in college.  One of the situations we were asked to consider involved if we were willing to sacrifice the life of one person, to save the lives of others.  Many people took the very princpled stance that no, it's immoral to kill someone, even if it did preserve the lives of others.  However, they were never asked to deal with the resulting deaths by their inaction (not that it mattered much in a purely hypothetical classroom enviroment).

Ethics are great.  Morality is peachy keen.  But realize that we're not talking purely in the abstract, and that the high road can, and very often gets real people killed (not to say the low road isn't bloody, I just happen to believe the low road gets less people killed for more favorable results).

Back to Ron Paul.  It worries me that people have such high expectations for the man.  They're wholly out of proportion with just what a president can do, and even outside the realm of what is reasonable to expect.  Not to mention off the internet, he's still an unknown.

(in reply to NeedToUseYou)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Ron Paul raises $5.4 M in one day! - 12/24/2007 3:13:04 PM   
BraceletMe


Posts: 23
Joined: 3/9/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

Fund the military and national defense? You abolish the privately owned Federal Reserve and the fractional banking system. You then establish a 4th branch of government, which then defines and issues our non-debt money.


You have hit on the most important issue (by far, everything else pales in comparison) of our times.  The basic modus operandi of the Fed (and other central banks) is to create money out of thin air and lend it out at interest.  In the U.S. it has gotten to the point where every single dollar of our Federal Income Tax goes to pay the interest on the national debt.  If the government itself issues the currency, there is no interest expense to be paid to the hidden elite (who are the actual owners of the Fed).

So what happens is countless dollars are siphoned off from taxpayers all over the world, straight into the pockets of a select few (Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Morgans, and a few others).  I strongly suggest anyone reading this to do some reading on their own to learn more - I am just now starting to read "The Creature from Jekyll Island".

In the bargain, more and more dollars also flood the market and our currency gets more devalued as well.

Most people haven't thought of the above or can't understand it, that's the problem.  I have worked on Wall Street for about 20 years and I was completely unaware myself until maybe August of this year.  That's what we are all up against here.  The whole scheme is so difficult to believe, people don't believe it.  And the workings aren't easy to understand, either.  But, it's all true, based on what I've been learning.  I urge anyone reading this to do some thorough investigation and make up their own mind (I also strongly suggest viewing "Money Masters" which you can google and find for yourself online to watch).  You will likely look at the world much differently after watching that (it is 3 1/2 hours long but worth every single minute).

That brings us to Ron Paul.  He is fully aware of the above and is doing his best to bring this (which no one else has ever spoken about in years and years) out of the dark and into the light.  For this reason alone, he is the only possible choice for President.  It can barely even be debated once you understand just the Federal Reserve, let alone anything else.

Ron Paul speaks truth to power.  He is for you.  He is for me.  He is not for big government.  He is not for big corporations.  What else do any of us need to know?  While he is the candidate talked about by the average American more than anyone else, don't you ask yourself why he is covered so little by the mainstream media?  If Giuliani or Clinton raised $6M in one day or had a blimp flying over the Eastern Seaboard, don't you think we would be reading about it endlessly for days?  Yet, with Ron Paul, barely a mention and you only find about it if you are already looking for it.

Ron Paul, simply put, is the best candidate we have had for President since JFK, at least.  I urge all to tell everyone they come across about this man - let it not be said that we stood by and did nothing in such important times.



(in reply to subfever)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Ron Paul raises $5.4 M in one day! - 12/24/2007 3:28:47 PM   
Pavel


Posts: 308
Joined: 1/10/2005
From: Washington
Status: offline 		Please excuse me, I don't do forums, and I don't feel like fighting with the quote function.

"Ron Paul speaks truth to power.  He is for you.  He is for me.  He is not for big government.  He is not for big corporations.  What else do any of us need to know?" As stated by BraceletMe.

That's the exact kind of crap that scares the hell out of me.  What does that even mean?  It's like saying he's pro-Kansas.  All canidates are pro-people, anti-big government, not for big corporations, the only thing that varies is how much of a lie that statement is.

More importantly, any time you end a statement with "What else do any of us need to know?" and it's not pertaining to that puppies are cute, and Nascar sucks, you have failed.  Learn everything you can.  Then learn more.  Then question what you learned prior.  You may never get the whole story, but things run deeper than names on blimps, and online polls.

(in reply to BraceletMe)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Ron Paul raises $5.4 M in one day! - 12/24/2007 3:44:02 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		Some good posts!
Some people seem to think that "isolationism" is a "bad" thing.
Please explain to me how all this "interventionism" that enriches corporations and impoverishes Taxpayers is a "good" thing.
Seven hundred bases in 130 countries, a "good" thing?
Embasseys in every single country in the world save 4 or 5 a "good" thing?
Sorry but I just don't believe in *Imperialism.*
"We should not involve ourselves in foreign entanglements."
             - George Washington-

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to BraceletMe)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Ron Paul raises $5.4 M in one day! - 12/24/2007 4:01:22 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: KindLadyGrey

Those people are absolutely right, but just because the road is hard doesn't mean it's the wrong road.


"In life, the important things are simple, and the simple things are hard."

Health,
al-Aswad.


< Message edited by Aswad -- 12/24/2007 4:04:07 PM >

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to KindLadyGrey)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Ron Paul raises $5.4 M in one day! - 12/24/2007 4:08:16 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline 		 
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pavel

I personally believe that which is indeed good, and indeed worth being right on must be protected by that which is often unethical, or at least not wholly on the straight and narrow.


Then I would posit that you understand neither. But I'm just a raving loonie, so don't mind me.

Health,
al-Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to Pavel)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Ron Paul raises $5.4 M in one day! - 12/24/2007 4:18:57 PM   
Pavel


Posts: 308
Joined: 1/10/2005
From: Washington
Status: offline 		Either way, I'd rather be alive and wrong than dead and ethical.

I would suggest you live in an enviroment in which you don't have to actually make that choice, and that your ethical choices will by and large merely cause people to be upset with you on the bad side of things.

But then again, what do I know?  Apparently I don't understand anything.

By the way, how'd that isolationism go for us in 1810, 1917, and 1941 anyways?

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Ron Paul raises $5.4 M in one day! - 12/24/2007 4:18:58 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pavel

That's the exact kind of crap that scares the hell out of me. [...] More importantly, any time you end a statement with "What else do any of us need to know?" [...] you have failed.  Learn everything you can.  Then learn more.  Then question what you learned prior.  You may never get the whole story, but things run deeper than names on blimps, and online polls.


You misunderstand. Which scares me. Someone who can read and learn, yet doesn't understand that some won't, and really shouldn't. Read up on "need to know", how to perform stratification, compartmentalization, and so forth. The soldier is no general, and while there are some soldiers that could be, most are not, and most indeed shouldn't be. If everyone knew everything in this world, most would be in in-patient care.

It's good for a politician to compete in the race; which has little to do with honesty these days.

Would you rather see the country go to hell due to ignoring the lessons of yestermillenium? (BS word, I know.)

Health,
al-Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to Pavel)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Ron Paul raises $5.4 M in one day! Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109