Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Indie

Been here before - Can you back this up seeing that you haven’t been able to do so before?

As your post show you don’t seem able to address the criticisms levelled at your ideas – why do you continue to hold onto ideas you’re unable to defend in any rational or reasonable way?

 

Look at the Federal debt for one thing, then look compare the difference between welfare assistance payments to that of the minimum wage. If not working pays greater than working, that hardly motivates those on welfare to get off it.

Society benefits most when all the members contribute something. You can't create a more prosperous society by growing the number of non-productive members.

 

If money is finite, how much is there? And if you can answer that, if that amount was divided equally amongst the population how much would each person have? Just the money of the U.S. would be sufficient.

 

It doesn't matter how much money there is, there could be one dollar, or ten, or whatever, that would change nothing. What matters is how much material wealth there is-we know that matter is finite, and the "value" of money only reflects the ratio between the amount of money available, and the amount of matter that it is traded for.

The important part is the ratios of money relative to the whole supply, and thus, potential matter relative to it's whole supply, being hoarded by a few people. It directly takes matter and makes it unavailable to others who need it, while those who control it do nothing with it. It turns accounting tricks, playing numbers games with imaginary worthless currency, directly into control of vast amounts of potential spending power. When you take the wealth out from under the nation and put it in an imaginary form in an imaginary vault, people don't have the money needed for basic transactions, even with things that could be properly considered "theirs", because someone has stolen the paper symbol for those goods and properties.

These people did not "make" this matter, they may have done things to earn it, or made shrewd deals or risks-and they may "deserve" enough money to live however they wish, if they can manage it. But (I've said this MANY times now, you have not addressed it once) if they have a huge amount of money that they don't even have the capacity to spend, they should be taxed to a level that trims them down to having a reasonable cushion, and having no reduction of quality of life. This will not hurt them, they will experience NO change, but others will experience benefits from having that spending potential in circulation, instead of tied up in a swill bank.

If you make a rebuttal, kindly actually answer the things I've said, instead of tooting your little horn about how it's not the governments job to make people equal-because that's not what we're talking about, by any stretch of the imagination-all it shows when you say that is that you have not read or understood a word I've said. Also, I could care less about your imaginary and quite impossible nation of everything individual wants, I refuse your propositions to do things that might work in your utopia, but that, without all the other changes, fuck the populace over in favor of a few hundred people who "earned" it, despite never swinging a hammer, turning a screw, laying a pipe or fence, or even plugging in a toaster for themselves, in their pampered lives.

 

I wish you would use more clearly descriptive words. Assuming that by matter, you mean the products created from the matter which exists. Very few of our needs and wants exist naturally, but instead are made available only through our labors.
Our needs and wants are fulfilled only by exchange between us. Essentially, we transact with one another by exchanging products of equal value.
While matter is relatively finite, the products created from the matter which exists are not. The value of those products at any moment in time is a result of the available supply relative to the demand. The value of what we call money is also a result of the available supply, and the more there is the less it is worth.

Money is not hoarded, and would be like storing ice cubes at a temperature slightly above freezing. Most everyone who has an excess of money puts it somewhere that allows it to grow in value, which essentially keeps it in circulation. Our money has no intrinsic value of its own. It is simply a number written on a piece of paper, and the more of it is created the less value it has. If you really are looking for the source of the problem, perhaps you should take a hard look at our fractional reserve banking system which creates the illusion of an enormous money supply, until depositors decide to withdraw their savings en masse.

Why? Should those who possess, as you put it, "a huge amount of money" be taxed more simply because they have more than you would like them to have? Would it not be more reasonable for those who have less to put their labors to work in acquiring money rather than government to transfer money to them as a result of someone else's labor?

But it is NOT the Federal governments job to make people equal, or to provide their needs and wants by taking from one segment of society and giving to another. Nor should it be the job of State governments, but it should fall on the backs of the people who make up society, not by force of government, but instead by choice.

 

I'm talking about usable matter. Things of commercial value. Metal or ore-petrolium-livestock-lumber-whatever.

Quite finite. You can't make more than you start out with.

see above, very finite.

supply and demand matter, but as I explained, the ratio of money to goods determines the value of the money. To hold money fucks it ALL to shit.

money is hoarded, but they pretend to be moving it around. in reality, as you say, the fractional reserve system creates an illusion of money moving around, when it's really money that the bank MADE.

It doesn't matter where the bank pretends the money "moves" to, if you have a large amount of money, and after a period of time, still have a large amount of money, you're hoarding it, in effect.

they should be taxed, because they have more than they can possibly use, while others are in need, and as we have established, matter/goods are finite, and linked to the money supply-if someone has a huge amount of money that's not being spent, the "economy", but really the people, are directly made unable to access that proportion of the supply of goods. It's in the effect of buying up massive tracts of land while people need it, and then doing nothing with it and saying "but I worked for it".

Further, they did NOT work for it, as I said, no one lays millions of dollars of bricks a year, drives millions of dollars of nails a year, cooks millions of dollars of meals a year, does millions of dollars of oversight on an injection-moulding machine in a year..... The people with these obscene amounts of money are the people involved in numbers games with this very money, the money that we have established is worthless.

If government is not there to help with needs and wants (in this case by taking from people with no legitimate claim to much, if any, of their wealth), what are they for? Maybe it would be just as far outside their job to prevent extortion, or murder, or assault-given that money, as we established, correlates to real things, why should the government look after real things? Why do we have a government, when koch industries could just hire a militia to round the country into ghettos and drill every drop of oil out of every bit of land, and dump every bit of the nasties from refining into any water or air they wish? That would just be them "making" money, by being better than the people they take from-that sounds like a good idea, yes?

If the government is to be a government of the people, what is wrong with the government doing the will of the people, like taking care of undue wealth or poverty?

Also, don't be a tard-money is not finite, value is finite, and if I said money, I do apologise.... quite sure the rest of my posting clarified my meaning, however. As I said, it doesn't matter how much their is, the value adjusts to make the total money supply worth the whole goods supply, even if you use fractional reserve games to make it look like there's more money. Or even if you don't.

And yet again, a video of someone much more "succesful" (and apparently, hardworking) than individual, with a much better understanding of this than individual:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI&feature=plcp"]Nick Hanauer - YouTube

 

Some of what you list is finite, although partly to the degree of access we have in retrieving it. Trees, from which lumber is produced, and livestock you may wish to have second thoughts about.

Do you actually believe that persons such as Bill Gates, or Warren Buffett, to name just a couple of billionaires are hoarding their billions of dollars in the form of currency in a room somewhere? You need to recognize that there is quite a difference between money and wealth. Someone can be penniless yet have an enormous amount of wealth.

The fractional reserve system doesn't produce the illusion of money moving around, but only the illusion of a greater amount of money than what actually exists.

But the 'money' is not being hoarded, it might be put into banks, where it becomes available to make loans, or it can be invested in stock leaving the investor with a certificate which hopefully can be exchanged later for an equal or greater amount of money once again, or it might be used to purchase some precious metals, gem stones, art, antiques, etc. which the purchaser hopes will appreciate in value as the money used in making the purchase devalues over time.
Imagine two persons earning the same amount weekly, and one person spends his entire income on perishable items while the other purchases gold with half his earnings and lives a much more simple life. Over a working lifetime the initial person has accumulated nothing of value while the second person has accumulated much of value. Neither one has hoarded money, and one is much poorer than the other. What does the second person owe the first person?

The goods are made available, and the means by which they are acquired is money, which has to be earned by someone at some time past or present. Sadly, those who are not earning an income have difficulty acquiring the goods they desire, although they are available and not hoarded. The money too is not hoarded but available to those who find gainful employment by which the means of acquiring the goods becomes possible. If you have nothing to sell, either a product or your labor, that is wanted by another or others the problem you are facing is lack of employment, not money being hoarded.
I find no amount of money obscene, but what I do find obscene is the determined focus on taking from those who possess money, rather than trying to find a way to earn some of what they have in a productive manner.

If the money someone has was obtained legally, earned through work, investment, a gift, or inheritance, then they have a legitimate and legal claim to it as their property to do with as they wish. They can invest it, donate it, destroy it, or put it under their bed if they wish. Of course if they leave it under the bed for too long it may not buy much when they remove it, as prices rise and the money devalues.

The value of what is finite? The supply of something, anything, relative to the demand for it determines the value of it.

Is it your intent to constantly try and denigrate me or others who disagree with your views, rather than to engage in a civil exchange between our vastly differing ideologies?

As I don't view links or emails from untrusted strangers, you might enlighten me as to what it is in the video you wished to make a point of.

 

Matter being finite, livestock and lumber are quite finite, they require and use up land to raise or grow, and require a huge ongoing investment to take proper care of.

stop putting words in my mouth.

Nobody said anything about their currency sitting in a room. It would be much better if it was, as it is it is used as a tool by bankers to fuck people over with fractional reserve banking-you can SAY that it's being lent and spent while it's in the bank, but the fact is that there's more when they come back than when they left-in absolute effect they have hoarded it, AND hoarded is such a way that they made money out of thin air, because interest is the bank paying you for the privilage of making money out of thin air, using your money-they made money out of nothing, and made more money out of nothing to pay you with.

it does this by creating the illusion of money moving around.

that situation has nothing to do with this. we're not talking about honest laborers being forced to share their wealth. We're talking about the likes of gates and buffet, who clearly have done no work that could justify their money-and yet again, and still unanswered by you, is the fact that I would not EVEN like to tax them to the point that it effects their behavior or enjoyment of life.

You make many claims, but they are simple claims, with no substance.

Goods correspond to money. The total supply of goods corresponds to the total supply of money. If this was not he case, money would be useless and worthless.

Many do things that should provide an income, but are underpaid. Many have no oppertunity to earn money.

People who can not get money can also not get things that they NEED. Welfare does not buy Cadillacs-it buys things like food.

once again, employment is not always possible, and even if it was, the money of the rich is NOT there to pay for gainful employment, it's there to be a number that inflates self-worth and does little else, beyond the point that I believe these individuals should be taxed to.

Once someone has it, money is NOT there to be earned, if they're not in the habit of spending that money.

It is obscene to have money that you will never use, while others have serious need of money.

You keep bringing up legal-well yes, they have a legitimately legal claim to this, which is obscene.

Further, I do not accept the right to destroy usable property, no matter who owns it. Ownership is an illusion, and a necessary one to a degree, but in the end, the fact is that everyone borrows it while they're alive, and it must be preserved for the future. You may not decide that you "own" property and so will damage or pollute it, and you may not decide that you "own" things containing precious metals on which our future depends, like copper or gold, and then destroy them in such a way that the metals are irretrivable.

The law may agree with you now, but that does not make it legitimate, even if it's "legitimately legal". Legal and legitimate are not the same thing at all.

Total value is finite. money corresponds to total goods, and when one thing has higher value, something else has lower value.

I have been trying to participate in a civil exchange with you for months, but you have consistently refused to honestly answer any questions or criticisms leveled at you by me or any others. You ask sideways questions that imply a lack of understanding on my part, and/or imply that I said things that I did not even imply. When you can debate in an honest fashion you can whine about me denigrating you.

It's quite rediculous to refuse to watch a youtube video that is embedded it the page, it's YOUTUBE, it doesn't matter who gives you the link....... but, it's a video of someone who, by your own standards, is much smarter and more hardworking than you are, explaining exactly why your ideas hurt you and those richer than you. But if you don't watch it and can't rebut it, that's fine, you have not successfully defended a single political or financial idea that you have supported or brought up in your entire time on this website, as far as I know...... so one more doesn't hurt you much.

 

Then sticking with 'your' interpretation of what matter is, and 'your' claim that matter is finite, how do you explain the growth of the human population? Or, if you wish to explain it as a product created from the existing matter which you claim to be finite, then would you not claim human population growth to be both unsustainable and a misuse of our limited resources?

Asking a question is not putting words in your mouth, but a request for some words to be emitted from your mouth, or in these instances, printed.

How would it be better if currency was left sitting in a room?

If you were to loan someone $100 and require them to return $105 at a future date, no money is being created out of thin air. The banks on the other hand may have deposits of $1,000,000 and then loan out $5,000,000 at say 5% interest, expecting the $5,000,000 to be returned along with $250,000 in interest, from which it pays its operating costs, utilities, etc. along with interest to the depositors, wages and salaries of the employees, with anything remaining being unspent profit.
As long as all borrowers repay their loans the result is that no money is created out of thin air, leaving the bank with its original deposits of $1,000,000 plus any unspent profits remaining after operating expenses, which would allow for those who deposited money into the bank to be able to withdraw their money in full, including any accrued interest.

It would be more accurate to state that money moving around creates the illusion of more money existing than actually does. Actually, in 2009 the amount of real currency in existence was only a few thousand dollars per person, and the Federal government alone spent every existing dollar several times during the year with a claimed GDP of around $14 trillion. In order to show continuing growth the Federal government needs for each dollar that exists to circulate more frequently, and if they are not, the Fed steps in and increases the money supply, which in turn devalues the dollars already in circulation, causing price increases, higher wage demands, larger government budgets, greater government spending, with a larger deficit.
Try applying some deep thought to that and the effect it has on government, government social program spending, government borrowing and debt, GDP, the wealthy, along with the effect it has on the middle class and the poor.

Recognize as fact that Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and others like them have not ever received the money they are claimed to be worth, but only are holding stock certificates which can vary greatly in value from day to day, and only when they find buyers willing to purchase some of those stock certificates are they able to recognize a taxable income from them. If Microsoft was to go belly up overnight, Gates would lose most all of his wealth, therefore it is in his best interest to run, or have another run the company in a way that not only attracts consumers of the products they create, but also at a profit in order to maintain the value of the stock.

From your perspective I would expect that to be your response.

Money equates to production. Nothing produced, no money produced, no wages earned, nothing to exchange money for other than items that are non-perishable and have been created in the past.
The value of the total supply of goods is much greater than the money which exists, and the total value of that money, which is why the money which exists has to cycle many times in order for the goods produced to be consumed.

People are paid relative to the value of the work they perform by the one(s) who are paying them. Opportunity is not something you wait to happen, it has to be sought out.

Welfare buys whatever the recipient of it puts it to use in purchasing. But you need to recognize that those who are content to remain on welfare, while consuming from the productivity of the Nation, do not add anything to the productivity, resulting in a net loss.

Money exists only as the means of exchange in acquiring something of equivalent value. The money of those who are rich does pay for gainful employment when something is produced that they are willing to spend it on.

Spending should never become a habit, but only a function of acquiring ones needs, and wants within ones means.

That may be your perspective, but mine is that it is even more obscene to acquire debt on the backs of others. The need of money is most responsibly cared for by diligently seeking employment.

In other words you simply don't like it.

I agree with you on the pollution, but it's quite unlikely that anyone would irretrievably destroy things of value when they could benefit from putting them on the market.

How do you define legitimate and legal?
Should we have laws making things that you don't like illegal?

I fail to see any reasoning at all in that. Are to trying to imply that if the price of eggs increases, then the price will go down?

I have diligently tried to do so, but you, like many others here, seem to only want to argue over what others have, as though they have stolen or dishonestly taken something from those who have less.

Well, I have my rules, and why need I explain them to you? If there is/was something you feel relevant in the video, provide a clear and concise synopsis of what it is. I accept as fact that there are many people smarter and harder working than I, and I'm glad to see that you admit that we are not all equal to one another. I might add that, I am happy with the life I've lived, achieved the success I feel I earned without taking from anyone, even when times were tough, and having been retired for nearly 2 decades still retain my independence as a self reliant, responsible member of the society in which I live.

By the way, out of curiosity, what OS do you use? I wish someone would create a poll asking that question here.

 

Holy fuck I hate forum-formatting for this type of conversation.

Now, while you've got SOME of your old tricks in that post, there's some legitimately interesting things, too, and I guess i'll go through with those damned quote tags and continue the many mini conversations in it later..... frankly, I'm feeling too lazy right now.... Guess that's why I'm not done with school and making the big bucks, ehh....

I'm using linux-more precisely, ubuntu 11.10, although it's done some things that drive me nuts. I think ubuntu 10 LTS edition has been the best ubuntu I've used, did so for a very long time and when I upgraded to 11 I had problems right off the bat. Then, I have some hardware problems right now, when I have a new hard drive we'll see, I have a few failing ones at moment, different funky things start or stop with different ones running..... I think we do have an OS thread, although for some reason, it seemed a bit lackluster-but what OS do you use?

And out of curiosity, what is your religious or spiritual viewpoint? And have you ever used psychedelic drugs (if you have, I'd love to hear about their effect on your viewpoints towards life in general, and if you have not and are up for, at the least, an interesting experience, I'd encourage you to head over to the mushroom, cacti, acid, and synthetic drug forums)?

I would assume you're chirstian, and apply christian ideals to all, in that they should choose to help people, without the government telling them to?

Note that while I have strong ideas on spirituality, drugs, and religion, I'm not and will not bash your own ideas on them, I'm just curious.

 

I have no idea about American but if he's ready to make weed legal in da States then Thumbs up to him........

 

We're talking about politicians in this thread.

 

Not lately. When was Ron Paul, or any other politician mentioned last in this "would you vote for Ron Paul?" thread.

 

I'm pretty sure that people are planting trees and breeding livestock.

 

No conspiracy theory? Oh ok, just public obedience and gullibility only??

 

I was making a reference to the assumption of honesty with respect to U.S. politicians (and yes, Ron Paul is one). I'm sorry. I just can't swallow that. You can beat me now if you feel you must.

 

Rand Paul endorsed Mitt Romney, sucks to be Ron Paul right now. Still, i have high hopes for the convention in Tampa.

 

I'm with pressed rat, except I think he probably does talk out his ass - like a politician.

 

I'm pretty sure that you did not read the post where I expanded on that.

Those are not renewable resources if they're used the way that many in big business want to use them.