Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Is this for real?- No personal responsibility?- -Would be nice, but not finically practical

 

Essentially, all needs provided free and wants priced high enough to pay the bills in full.

 

maybe needs- - but peoples wants?- People want some wild shit, that they dont need

 

So they have to pay through the nose for their wants.

 

letlovin

As I’ve said nearly all right wing libertarian ideas when looked at seem to favour wealth – but let’s look at some of Ron Paul’s specific proposals.

• cut the top corporate tax rate to 15% (down from 35%)
• allow companies to repatriate capital without additional taxation
• permanently extend the Bush administration tax cuts
• eliminate capital gains and dividends taxes
• eliminate estate and gift taxes
• end taxes on personal savings
• sell federal lands and other federal assets

These would all mainly advantage wealth over any other group, giving it much greater power and influence. Oh and at the same time he’s suggesting cutting social and welfare programmes that mainly go to helping everyone but wealth.

 

1993

Well if you have given these things serious thought then you can address the many criticisms levelled at right wing libertarian ideas in a rational and reasonable way?

 

Oh Indie once more with the absolutist scaremongering - the alternative to your extreme right wing ideas is not a world in which the ‘government’ controls everything.

And just parroting such scare stories does not address the many and glaring flaws in the ideas you pump out with such regularity.

You make a big thing of ‘personal responsibility’ but as pointed out to you many times now that is a con game that right wingers use to bamboozle the gullible.

One of the biggest and most lasting effects on most people lives is something people can have no personal responsibility for and that is to whom they are born. No one can choose to be born into advantage or disadvantage.

So the idea that a person is totally and utterly responsible for their position in life is incredibly simplistic and often self serving, because it allows some to blame the ‘bad’ individual rather then a dysfunctional social system that is letting many people down.

 

The ‘personal responsibility con trick is just the old right wing argument of the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’.

This catch22 slight of hand said that the deserving are those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any and the undeserving are those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help.

So it was plain - the argument went – that there was little or no need for the advantaged to give assistance to the disadvantaged.

This con has been dressed up anew the modern right wing argument been that if people are responsible and make the right choices they wouldn’t need assistance but if they’re irresponsible and make bad choices they’re obviously lazy and feckless and don’t deserve assistance.

So they argue with Social Darwinist zeal that social and welfare programmes rather than helping the disadvantaged it only allows the irresponsible to wallow in their laziness and should be cut and the money saved be given to the advantaged because they don’t need help and therefore must not be lazy and so deserve the money more.

But the amount of money someone has does not dictate a person’s character but it can have a great impact on opportunities and the amount of choices open to someone. It can also dictate how hard someone is affected by bad circumstances.

So those seen as deserving and undeserving were and are often as not the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

 

Balb:

Personal responsibility is something that should be taught at young age, and then we might be able to care for those who are truly in need rather than a growing number who feel that they are simply entitled.
It is not a fact that the rich are made up only those born into wealth and those born into poverty are destined to remain poor.
Decisions are best made when they are based upon all the facts, something a centralized government system is seldom capable of acquiring accurately.

Oh, and the list you presented 'letlovin', ignoring his request for just one at a time, while they may 'seem' to you to favor wealth, seem to me as favoring jobs and investments which lead to jobs which is how people move from being poor.

 

Indie

Implying that most (and a growing number) are undeserving of assistance.

I would like responsibility in all its guises to be taught to everyone of all ages. Personal responsibility, responsibility for others, responsibility for the environment, responsibility to future generations, communal responsibility, responsibility to the welfare of those who through no fault of their own find themselves in hardship etc, etc….

No there are always exceptions but in general due to rather stagnant social mobility in the US over the last 30 odd years or so most Americans stay in the class into which they were born.

Old rhetoric - We’ve been through this before and after much questioning all the other times you’ve finally admitted you haven’t a clue what to do except that you think people should be allowed to die from want.

You basically say nobody should help anyone that they don’t know every detail about and even if they then think they deserve help they still don’t have to help if they don’t want to.

Again it comes back to the deserving/undeserving argument I outlined above.

LOL – it is from Wiki from RP’s Plan to Restore America that was broken up into different parts the list a reproduced come under one heading, that is one subject ‘Revenue changes’.

Rather than just trying to score points why not do some research?

And they would mainly favour wealth and give it a huge increase in power and influence.

And again you put up the same argument that you’ve been unable to defend time and time again.

Basically RP is just suggesting neoliberal policies that haven’t worked before all that has happened over the last 30 years or so is that wealth has become richer and more powerful while the real term incomes of the middle and lower classes have stagnated or fallen.

The ‘trickle’ down never seemed to happen, if anything it just meant that wealth invested money in either speculative ventures that inevitably burst causing great economic harm or in outsourcing abroad to the detriment of domestic employees.

 

Balb:

I think it's time we accept there is a growing number of persons who will accept living off others as long as government keeps trying to improve their living circumstances beyond what they would be able to provide through their own efforts.

Exactly what responsibilities exist between one person and another? If I experience financial problems, what is your responsibility to alleviate my problem?

While you may look at classes ranging from the poor to the rich, I think it should be obvious that both extremes have prospered greatly each passing generation, especially those who have taken some responsibility to improve their lives.

What you seem to call research is little more than accepting the view of the Left, which in my opinion is simply placing blame on others for your personal failures or lack of achievement.

I don't have a problem with those who have amassed wealth, and I've always found that when I invest a large sum wisely I profit more than when I invest a small sum wisely. Oh, but those who have a lot don't need it, don't deserve it, and they should be forced to share it by government. Really? Why?

At least Ron Paul is not a Marxist or a Communist. But he does understand how our Constitution intended our 'Federal' government to work.

Trickle down works, but most everyone today seems to feel they should be made wealthy overnight. Unions and Union wages lead to prices that non-union workers cannot afford and that allows for competition abroad where the cost of living allows businesses to relocate and increase the supply of a product or service at an affordable price to a much larger consumer base at home.

I've worked for as little as $.75 an hour and gradually moved up to $30 an hour over my working lifetime. I lived within my means, did without many wants, and invested sensibly and still do. So you would call me greedy and selfish based on the fact that I refuse to give away all my savings and become dependent on government?

Balb, the only thing we would could ever likely agree on is that the views from the Left and the views from the Right are diametrically opposed and irreconcilable with one another.

Good luck with some of the others here who seem to be to your Right.

 

There is no criticisms in my book for Ron Paul, he wants to run this country by the basis of te constitution where we are all free from injustice. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing to criticize, I am a full fledged supporter of Ron Paul and he can lead te revolution this country so desperately needs.

 

lol, thats pretty funny

 

More sad and ignorant than anything else. Instead of answering any criticisms he just said "there aren't any" to skirt actually having to think.

 

I said, in my book, as in I don't have any criticisms and I have not read any. He is the most suitable candidate for president, would you rather the corporation buyouts mitt Romney or Obama?

 

You haven't read any? Try reading the thread you're posting in. And to answer your question, Obama, by far.

 

I don't even bother reading the hate posts how can you hate on Ron Paul. I'm done with this thread.

 

Denial...

 

Add Ron Paul 2012 on Facebook it's not lies

 

In the last four years our debt is more debt than we have had in our nations history. I think Obama went wrong somewhere, as well as the bush administration. They robbed the American people. The stimulus package was a bailout , no it was free money for those large corporations. Get out of here with that other bullshit. Ron Paul is the only man that can fix our economic problems, do your research!