Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Indie

This also comes up against the deserving/undeserving problem.

It was argued 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 reason to give assistance to the disadvantaged (see also the Social Darwinist argument above).

The problem was that these people were often the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

And as I pointed out this is very similar to the right wing argument often put forward today that if people are responsible and make “better decisions” they don’t need assistance but if they’re irresponsible and make “poor decisions” they don’t deserve assistance.

The problem again being that the responsible people are often the same irresponsible people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

 

Well the simple question is, who is paying for the child? We understand that people shouldn't have children they can't support, but the fact is that they do, and these children must be cared for. You don't think that people with more than enough money for themselves should, and we know that the parents can't, it doesn't much matter who blames who, when the child needs things that can't be had-because of the sins of the father.

You ask about people suffering from malnutrition and want-I have no numbers for you, but I personally know, and if you care to travel to where I am, will quite literally introduce you to, many people who are seriously fucked up in very avoidable ways. Very few of them see anything wrong with themselves, which makes the whole thing much sadder. And many would be no better off with the proper assistance, but trying is a hell of a lot better than not trying. Maybe no amount of spending on schools, foodstamps, or public works would singly fix these lives, but together, all of those things would make millions of lives a bit better, and the better off people are, the better off their neighbors are (like the opposite of how one guy moving into a nice neighborhood can ruin it). I can take you through the "other side of the tracks", and you can see what people could be saved from-including their own parents.

I suppose the difference here is that you care more for "fairness" in numbers, than the quality of life for millions. Your understanding of fairness is rigged for wealth-I think fairness stops mattering when you have acquired more than you need. I've been defining "more than you need" as "could never spend all your money, will suffer no degradation of quality of life by X level of taxation". I don't care about the fairness that allows people to get exponentially richer, I care than everyone lives the happy fulfilled life that they could, even if it drains the bank accounts of thieves and ties up money that would otherwise fight foreign wars of aggression.

As for the line graph, it's salary GROWTH....... I don't care how much rich peoples salaries stop growing.

Fairness is not freedom from the responsibility of being human.

 

Bal:

That was one post?

 

I'm all for taking the money from the thieves. Who might they be? Anyone who is rich?

 

Neoliberalism gives unearned advantage to the wealthy. Simply put, its proponents claim that if the investor or wealth class is free from economic burdens the benefits will trickle down to the rest of society.

Thank you for arguing Balbus' point.

Since it should be evident by now that neoliberalism does not result in wealth flowing downward to the rest of society, as evidenced by current high unemployment and debt, shouldn’t the wealthy be required to give back the benefits they have received through neoliberal policies these last thirty years?

 

It would appear that benefits have 'trickled?' down to the rest of society if you look around. An example comes to mind from a time I was temporarily working in Sunnyvale, California. While driving through an underpass I noticed that there was a large number of homeless people living there, and they were watching TV. After several trips I was able to take note that they not only had TVs and electricity but also refrigerators.

The point is that wealth flows in all directions, upwards, downwards, sideways, or where ever something of value draws it.
Why should the wealthy be required to give back something that was received as a result of providing something in the first place? The transactions which take place in a somewhat free market are the result of individuals exercising free choice in giving up money to acquire a product or service.

And to put things in the proper perspective it is the Liberal, or whatever label you prefer, Progressive, Socialist, etc., policies that began about 99 years ago that has created the bulk of the problems we now are having to contend with.

 

Do you mean like how the wealthy, private profiteers, have provided "the bill" in the form of a mountain of public debt?

Or how the "job creators" are creating jobs?

 

You do realize you're a liberal-capitalist don't you?

 

Many of them.

And as for any rich who really and truly deserve it, as I've said many times, I don't think anyone should be taxed in a way that effects their quality of life. For someone making 30k a year, ANY tax is a big deal, and they should pay very little. For someone making 30m a year, you could tax many millions without it effecting their day-to-day lives.

Property rights (read: rights to wealth in general) are to garuantee the wellbeing of the individual, and to allow prosperity-but there is a point at which that prosperity can have no more positive effect on that individual, but could have such an effect on others, and thus having that prosperity sitting in a bank account where it will never be used, other than by the guy compiling the forbes list, is effectively stealing from those in need. So I'm all for property rights, but you must understand that they are a social construct, as is owning things in the first place, and as such, reasonable limits may be put upon them. My definition is quite allowing, again..... NO DECREASE IN QUALITY OF LIFE. That means individual can keep sitting on his yaht eating caviar off of the naked daughters of middle eastern royalty, with or without the taxes I propose-And given this, it is either irrational, and/or evil to oppose what I propose.

You have a right to have-but you don't have a right to have more than you can use. and again, note that I don't set any arbitrary limit, I say more than you CAN use, which can be determined as some sort of percentage of savings or investments (as investment inherently means that money is disposable) calculated yearly.

Also, to keep rich people from simply using rich contacts elsewhere, very strict international banking regulations need to be implemented, ESPECIALLY for corporations.

 

out:

Cumulative social program spending accounts for most all of the public debt, and is the fastest growing segment of Government spending.

Assuming we are talking only about the Federal government system, I'm not a Liberal as it is defined today. You would be more accurate to call me right of center.

It would appear that you have misinterpreted what I wrote if you think it was supportive of Balbus' point.

 

Roo:

There are ways to accumulate vast amounts of wealth and avoid taxes. I believe it was Steve Jobs who took a $1 a year salary, and Warren Buffet earned billions earning a $30,000 per year taxable salary. The best way to redistribute the wealth held by the rich is to sell them something at an exorbitant price. The more of them there are the greater the number of job opportunities. How much was spent, and how many people were employed building Bill Gates house? You might also ask how many endangered tree species were used in its' construction. How do you feel about Left wing propagandist George Soros? Balbus and the Bank of England probably like him. Capitalism isn't simply something attributed to those on the Right.

Do you actually believe that government spends money more wisely than the people they take it from? Obviously they do so without making any profit, but instead accumulate massive amounts of debt.

 

And what the fuck is wrong with spending most of our money improving quality of life?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

If we cut out the wars, we'd be leaps and bounds better-and if we knew how to spend and regulate it, we'd be the world's healthiest most stable economy, and not based on totally impossible eternal growth.

The whole idea of US money, and world economies, is a complete sham and fraud, based on a fairy tale of unending growth..... so yeah, rich people, due to the current system, which they used to get rich, are thieves.

 

Roo:

Our money?

Some of us are better off because we do know how to spend our money. When you're attacked you have to choose between one of two responses, surrender or fight. I believe Ron Paul suggested that we should not be the worlds police, and stay out of wars that are not our business.

I thought you were a supporter of a global community.

Theft is against the law, why not then charge Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and George Soros, to name but a few and bring them to justice.

I see so much animosity directed at the rich, promoting raising the taxes on them as the only viable solution. Maybe that's what needs to happen just to allow everyone to learn first hand the consequences.

 

RNC Legal Counsel: Delegates are unbound, Ron Paul poised to win the nomination

http://www.examiner.com/article/rnc...32443361_23438874_10150939274283361#f1e0a24fa

It must be happening right?

 

I still think Ron Paul has too much negative baggage to be president, but if he is elected, we would be able to play volleyball, swim, tennis or frisbee nude in every city park in America, swim nude at every beach in America and the dream of that degree of freedom in the so-called land of the free, almost makes me willing to vote for him, but he would sell our country to the highest bidder and overseas outsourcing would happen like you've never seen before.
We would not be able to afford to go to the beach, nude or otherwise with Ron Paul in office.

 

Ron Paul was one of only three congressmen that voted against HR 347, this draconian law that would make it illegal to protest in the presence of anyone receiving Secret Service protection, in effect shredding the First Amendment. Ron Paul's so terrible, eh? He's one of the very few that has the guts to stand up and be counted when our freedoms are at stake!

Here's the vote tally: http://bonjupatten.com/2012/03/05/w...ll-your-state-reps-and-demand-an-explanation/

 

^ AND he voted against the patriot act, the NDAA, CISPA and the Iraq war. He's our biggest line of defense for our liberty! Obama is a sham...

 

Some are better off because they know how to spend money, but most who are better off are so because they know how to steal money.

I'm a supporter of a global community, but nothing like the one we have. With the mess we've made, we need to step the fuck back, and have massive tariffs on some imports, mainly anything from the PRC. The global community we have benefits the super rich, while making americans think that buying cheap shit at wally world benefits them.

I'm all for bringing justice to crooks who have stolen billions. And I don't mean by locking them up, I mean restorative justice, taking a fuckton of money back.

There is no one set of consequences for taxing the rich, or anything else. It could go great, and could be a fiasco, totally depends how it's done.

Once again, HOW would it hurt to tax rich people on money that they could never spend? I'm not talking about people living in suburbia, making 200k. I'm talking about people making millions and billions of dollars yearly, and once again, taxing based on the money that they do NOT spend, based on their savings and investments. The money's not doing them a fucking thing if they're not using it-greed for actual things that you use is fine, greed for fucking numbers, which in turn, causes others harm for want of those same silly numbers, is fucking criminal, and needs to be taxed as a simple means of restoration and prevention.

 

Could you be a little more specific? How about just one name we might all recognize , and an example of how he/she is stealing/has stolen money becoming rich.

What would be the effect of imposing massive tariffs on some imports? And how do you propose that would benefit the consumers and/or the government? Am I to assume you feel that would decrease the wealth acquired by the rich and in some way benefit the consumer? That needs an explanation.

Can you name a few of the crooks you are claiming to have stolen billions?

Admitting there are consequences to raising the taxes on the rich, I assume making them less rich regardless of the consequences to be your primary goal?

You seem to have a convoluted idea of what is done with money which is unspent. Do you think those who are rich store their excess money in a room or under their bed? Who is making billions of dollars a year? When money is earned, it is taxed, when it is put into a savings account the interest earned is taxed, when it is invested, the gains when realized are taxed. Do you propose something similar to a property tax on money?

Until after Obama was in office there was less than a trillion dollars in existence. Most of the money of the billionaires you seem to detest, exists only on paper. Imagine if Bill Gates wanted to turn his billions into cash currency, he would lose most of it very quickly as it would require those actually holding cash currency to trade their currency for a stock certificate which they would in turn have to find a purchaser willing to give them an equal or greater amount of cash currency at a later date.