Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

How is any individual rich or poor equal to any collective group of persons, be they a corporation or simply people with an agenda?

 

Indie

Another puzzle post how fascinating.

1)WOW what a badly garbled post you produced

Yes it was garbled and I’m guessing purposely so it’s just another trick, a form of misdirection, a means to confusion - a way of dissociating the issues raised from the replies given – for example there are 10 points but you have only 5 replies with only 4 of those actually linked to a point raised.


2)so where is this post, I must have missed it, as far as I know it was you that said –Post 1213 of this thread. it is like having a race between two runners, one crippled and the other very healthy and athletic, and then breaking the legs of the more capable competitorAre you saying you got the ‘cripple’ idea from someone else?
You said a supporter that’s all - can you actually produce this post that mentioned leg breaking, if not why not?

I have looked it doesn’t seem to exist, I mean it can’t be Roo’s post as that come after yours not before it, so where is it?

**

Yes that is your opinion but that’s the problem you seem unable to back it up with any rational and reasonable argument other than your personal belief, while seemingly been unable to defend that opinion from criticism. Yes to what are you admitting you can’t back up your arguments in any rational or reasonable and if so why hold on to them?


This doesn’t have a reply

**

Actually point 4 but you seem to answer it as 3) I mean you accept it is unfair but you then support ideas that would most likely make things a lot more unfair for the majority of people while making a few a lot more powerful. I’ve never said someone shouldn’t be paid a good wage for a good job. I’m just pointing out that being born into disadvantage gives people a disadvantage

You said that - I just don't see things as being as unfair as you – so you do think things unfair. I mean your famous defence of your ideas so far has been that ‘life is unfair’ and ‘shit happens’.

**

5Again the problem is that you seem unable to defend your ‘acceptable’ ideas from the many criticisms levelled at them. But is the knowledge accurate or just ‘accurate’ in your opinion? The former could probably be backed up rationally the latter probably not, and since you seem unable to defend your opinions….

No reply


**

Actually 6 but you answer 4) Did the child choose to be born into disadvantage? Yes you can blame the parents, but is the child responsible for the parent’s decisions? Is the child responsible for being born into disadvantage and for her parent’s decisions?
I mean slavery was legal once did that make it fair and just?

Can a child choose its parents?

It is not the child’s decision to be born into advantage or disadvantage –so is it justified for a person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages they didn’t earn rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged?

So far you say yes but there seems to be no rational or reasonable basis for that opinion.

*

Point 7 – no reply
Point 8 – no reply
Point 9 – no reply
Point 10 – no reply

 

Indie

But as we have gone through before you seem to see anything to the left of your rather extreme right wing views as being ‘socialist nonsense’. The problem is that you seem incapable of defending your ideas against the many criticisms levelled at them.

I’ll repeat something I said to someone else that tried this - So unable to address the criticisms you try and attack the credibility of the critics, it’s a form of negative campaigning that is as old as the hills. So here you try to portray me as some ‘out of touch’…with no experience of the real world.

As I’ve pointed to you before I and many others who have posted here believe the problem is that wealth has too much power and influence in US society.

You claim you want to reduce wealth’s power but the ideas you present (like giving wealth greater voting rights) would only increase wealth’s power criticisms that you seem incapable of addressing let alone refuting.

 

If this is true:

How can this be true?

What part of capitalism would prevent capitalists from purchasing legislators and having laws passed favorable to themselves?

Why would a capitalist refrain from such activity?

 

There are certain people in capitalism who are evil people, that doesn't mean all of them are evil. Bill Gates is not a monster, the Rockefellers are monsters.

If you want to stop the industries that support bad laws, stop supporting the company.

IE: Chase Bank, Bank of America, Walmart, AT&T, Fox Broadcasting and many others. Let's be realistic, we are witnessing the biggest money grab in American history. The problem doesn't end at "democrat or republican?" Because the system is rotten to the core!

Ron Paul is ultimately the guy to fix the economy. And the government. Please watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NGg_07xrVo"]Ron Paul on Fox Business 3/21/12 - YouTube

 

Also watch this,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2YJ1Y9sTEY&feature=related"]HOLY SH!T CNN FINALLY ADMITS RON PAUL IS IN SECOND PLACE IN DELEGATES (1080p) - YouTube
all taxes are bad in the end, bro. Wouldn't you love to pay less taxes? End the Iraq and Afganistan wars? Wouldn't it be nice to have a real president who's down to earth, and acts seriously toward a responsible drug policy? Obama increased the war on drugs by 20 million dollars, our taxes that you want to pay more of. Under Ron Paul, we would be able to spend our own money and not hope that the government uses it appropriately. He stands for the individual, and everyone is different. Some rich, some poor, but individual liberty is something that we've yet to see. And something that we need if we wish to remain a prosperous nation.

 

Yes, I would love to pay less taxes.

Yes to this too.

Yes, it would be nice.

Wrong conclusion.

Ron Paul is too neoliberal for me. I disagree with the neoliberal premise that if only government would get out of the way of the markets, the invisible hand will bring prosperity.

The problem with government institutions today is they are controlled by multinational corporate interests. In order to bring health to those government institutions, corporate influence must be purged. Government should work as corporate watchdog not lapdog.

 

This sounds very greedy to me.

I care about individual liberty. But that does not involve not paying taxes. Not paying taxes that interfere with one's quality of life is important. Those at, below, or even slightly above the poverty line should obviously pay NO taxes-then a slow curve, that stops at a very large chunk of the salary of someone making millions of dollars.

There are things the government needs to do, and it does need money for these things. There are obviously things that the government should NOT do, like blow our future playing world police, or allow big businesses to fuck over individuals, or destroy most of the american continent's quality of life and freedom to fight a war against the possibility that someone, somewhere, is smoking a joint.

But the solution to those things is not to abolish most of the government, that makes all those problems WORSE. The solution is to start taxing in a fair way, and spending the money in a fair way.

 

Imo, the demarcation between things 'the government needs to do' and things that should be open to the private sector should be 'common interest vs. private interest.'

A common interest is common to everyone. For example: water, energy and health-care are common interests therefore government should, by taxation, provide those services.

A private interest would be the sale of a non-essential widget or gadget that is not essential for survival. Private interests would be in the private sector for competition.

 

Excellent points! But it begs the question: by providing energy, should the government provide all we want free of charge? Charge for "excessive" consumption?

What do we mean by taxation? If we tax a business, they will pass on the costs to consumers with increased prices. Should we have ad valorum tax? Consumption (sales) tax only? Tariffs to help nurture local industries and favor them over foreign imports? Should we have a total blockade of foreign goods?

 

I was thinking of before the days of deregulation-- municipally owned.

I'd like to go back to the New Deal and Eisenhower income tax rates for the wealthiest Americans. It's only fair, the wealthy have greatly benefitted the last three decades because of neoliberal economic policies. A wealth tax would also be an essential element to restoring nations to sound financial footing.

No. They're too regressive.

If a global economy is the goal and has any chance at sustainability, doesn't that suggest global governance would be needed? I'm not sure that's possible at the moment.

 

The phone company was a government-controlled monopoly but was abusive of the privilege and had gross inefficiencies in the corporate structure. They lobbied the PSC for rate increases and more times than not, the PSC rolled over and gave them whatever they asked for.
I am not opposed to a monopoly, but we can't allow the utilities to go back to that cozy relationship with government.

Where's the money? If we taxed 100% of the personal assets of the richest 1%, would it pay the national debt?
I don't think so. I believe the money is in corporate hands.

They can be made progressive. Exempt the poor from all consumption taxes or eliminate consumption taxes from some or all essentials (food, water, etc)

Actually a global economy is not a worthy goal. You will never equalize the pay scale of India with the USA. That's why products and services from different currencies are costing US jobs. Look at what is happening in Greece with the Euro.

 

When utilities or corporations are cozy with government the result is corruption. The question then becomes, "how can corruption be kept in check?" One answer is to establish 'checks and balances.' Neoliberals don't like that concept.

It might not pay off the balance but it would be the fair thing to do. Wealth has dominated through neoliberal policies over the last thirty years. It's only fair for them to sacrifice too.

Agreed

Don't say that around a neoliberal

 

Bal:

You seem to have time to search the posts for things you can complain about, so try looking at the posts previous to the one I posted and you will find a response to me where it was suggested that one contestant ran over the injured one with his expensive sports car, the make I don't recall, and refused to provide him with crutches, which he had stolen from the injured contestants Grandmother.

But is there a point to arguing over each word used, other than to eliminate any possibility of rational conversation?

We are both providing our opinions, which differ greatly. Maybe it's the difference between where we live, and things may be much worse in Great Britain than in the U.S., or most every other country where I live or have lived.

I fail to see the association between child birth and slavery. It would appear that based upon your obsession with the wealth of others that either 99% or 90% of people are born disadvantaged. Tossing out quotes, studies, or statistics provided by Left leaning and Right leaning books does not always deal with reality, and probably seldom does.

Obviously you know the answer to the question "can a child choose its' parents?" The real question you should be asking is "should parents take responsibility for bringing a child into the world?" and, "should society as a whole be held responsible for the irresponsibility of others, without their consent?". Like I said before, charity is giving as a choice by the giver, and government has nothing it can give without first taking, or borrowing which only postpones the taking.

And I never answered your question "can a child choose its' parents?" with a 'yes' so why would you imply such?

You seem to enjoy long drawn out argument with no intent or desire at all in achieving any form of resolution that might be acceptable to most.

I have no idea what 7, 8, 9, and 10 were, and obviously if I ignored them it was because I didn't feel they were worth responding to. If you'd like, you could repost one of them at a time. I don't read back in these forums as they are too lengthy, and if you feel something important, you can simply cut and paste it in a new post.

 

Bal:

You reduce the power of wealth by reducing the ability to exercise it from the point where it is exercised, the government. More or less by electing someone like Ron Paul and others like minded to both houses of Congress.

It's like going into a store, carrying loads of money, that has nothing you want or need, you most likely will walk out empty handed. If Government has nothing to sell, it's no different than any business, the consumers cease shopping there.

 

And this is the whole problem with your argument. (not to mention the fact that it's also the crux of your argument)

That's utter bullshit. Wealth finds influence in government because government lets it. And the influence that wealth wants is to make government leave it alone, as you and ron paul want to do. Being able to freely manipulate currency and exchange rates, poverty and culture, etc, with NO government is obviously no better than doing it through the government.

Why the fuck do you think big corporations pretty consistantly belong to and give huge amounts of money to "conservative" groups, that say exactly what you say (and throw in some shit about abortion, to get the rest of the nutjob vote)?

 

Conservatives tend to react to things they don’t like with violence. I’ve experimented with that idea with conservative and liberal co-workers and I’ve found it to be true.

The association is that slavery is often generational.

So why does society hold the child responsible for something outside of her control? Society is by design you know.

Of course they should.

From a very simplistic and isolated viewpoint –no.
Society should however consider the environment that is being created as a result of the laws of its land.

A more direct way of reducing the scourge of obscene wealth is to target and tax wealth.

 

Roo:

Talk about utter bullshit, or should I say pure stupidity.

"Wealth finds influence in government because government lets it."

That's why our government is supposed to be constrained by the limits imposed upon it by our Constitution. Of course government lets it, or should I say the politicians we elect to represent us are beholding to those who fund their campaigns more so than they are to those who simply vote for them.


"And the influence that wealth wants is to make government leave it alone, as you and ron paul want to do."

I think it would be more accurate to say that the influence sought by wealth is to assure that the laws and regulations passed by those they have contributed to will be beneficial rather than harmful to them. I've not seen Ron Paul propose anything even close to what you insinuate. No one, including Ron Paul, has suggested the elimination of government. Government has been manipulating our currency and exchange rates since the Fed was created.

Why the 'FUCK' do you think Ron Paul receives little or no funding from the wealthy and corporations, while both Obama, a Socialist and Romney, a moderate, do? There is no conservative in the race, and what you would call conservative groups are funding Romney. So you're pro-abortion? I don't even consider it an issue in a Presidential election, especially considering there are much more important issues to tackle.

 

out:

Funny that you would say that, as I've always found it to be the Liberals, Leftists, Socialists, Marxists, and Democrats in general who seem to react violently or maliciously when they don't get their way.

Your last sentence, "You could also reduce the power of wealth by targeting and taxing wealth.", I assume you meant jokingly?

 

No. I'm not joking.

Consider this:



The income disparity is the result of neoliberal economic policies that have deliberately favored them disproportionately over the rest of the population for the last thirty years. It’s time for them to sacrifice just like the rest of us have been doing for the last thirty years because of those same neoliberal economic policies.

So rejecting institutional inequality is not a violent act. It is rational. It questions the fairness of the system. Something Individual seems to dislike.