Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

crony capitalism is exciting???

 

He's okay with aborting, just not with aborting a fetus, which he wants to be considered a person from the moment of conception.

A little bit dishonest of him, the wordplay he uses around THAT one.

 

^ I see no dishonesty at all. He is "pro choice." He made his choice, and he wants you to make yours. He is personally against abortion, yes. But he doesn't want to force his views on anyone, but to let the states decide. The federal government should stay out of it.

Look at it from his perspective. He's lived his entire life dedicated to protecting the unborn. Hes brought over 4000 babies into this world....it's his job to make sure they enter this world safely. Of course he is going to have a biased opinion on the matter. Is he not entitled to his own opinion? What makes him different is that he understands it's not his job to make the rules to embody his personal beliefs, but to ensure that we as citizens get to decide our own path. Sure he would vote to ban abortions in Texas. But he wants there to be a vote, And for his vote to be counted the same as yours. That is true representation.

Here are some of his quotes on the subject:


"My argument is that the abortion problem is more of a social and moral issue than it is a legal one. If we are ever to have fewer abortions, society must change. The law will not accomplish that. However, that does not mean that the states shouldn't be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion. Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her moral choice."
Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p. 5 , Apr 19, 2011


"It is now widely accepted that there's a constitutional right to abort a human fetus. Of course, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence. Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states.
I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. Legislation that I have proposed would limit fe4deral court jurisdiction of abortion, and allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters. It will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that.
The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of admitting that my position allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic."



I have a Bill in congress I certainly would promote and push as president, called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. We establish the principle that life begins at conception. And someone says, ‘oh why are you saying that?’ and I say, ‘well, that’s not a political statement -- that’s a scientific statement that I’m making!“

 

As far as I know, and I think the last time I saw his website, he said that, but simultaniously wanted to make a fetus a person at a federal level.

And no, pro-choice means you support other people's right to choose, he is choosing to NOT respect those other choices.

At any rate, the rule of law is often highly immoral and unfair, and I do not buy that states should have the power to make laws regarding people's interaction with doctors, or their own bodies, or that sort of thing. Just like ron paul would leave drugs up to the state, but I think they should clearly be permitted accross the board-maybe individual states could set age limits, from 16-21 or something, for different drugs outside of parental supervision.

 

LetLovinTakeHold: Exactly!

RooRshack: In what way did Ron Paul simultaneously want to make a fetus a person at a Federal level? A question comes to mind, If two women leaving their Doctors office, both having been told that they are pregnant. Neither of them had wanted to become pregnant, and discovering that one is pro-choice and going to have an abortion while the other is pro-life and is going to accept and carry full term, they get into an argument which results in punches being thrown, resulting in both having miscarriages. Legally speaking, has a life been taken? Would it make a difference if one of them had been trying very hard to achieve pregnancy, or how about if the argument was over something else and they both were planning to have abortions?

Often there is a very fine line between defining issues as one of rights versus morals, and sometimes it would be best for government to simply allow the societies to decide those issues. In my youth, while in the 8th grade at school, one of my classmates got pregnant, and it only became known after it became known that her family moved, not because of a law but shame. In my opinion, morals shaped by societies more often achieve higher standards than those which government would impose upon societies as a whole.

You claim that " I do not buy that States should have the power to make laws ..., and then claim that you think individual States could ...", but seem to accept allowing the Federal government to have that power when it is exercised to your liking. Shouldn't the people have more power than either the State or the Federal government? And should not both the State and the Federal government restrain their exercise of power to only what the people have given them, expanding their powers only by consent of the governed, not simply assuming additional powers have been consented as a result of winning an election?

 

Indie

Once again you are repeating stuff we have already covered and for which you still have not addressed the criticisms.

Covered many times – I mean on education only recently just above Post 1562 – can you actually address the criticisms of your views rather than just reiterating them?

 

Indie

This was covered some time ago – here for example is something from 05/17/2011 in the What to do in the mad, mad world?

It seems to me that this reveals an inexperience (bordering on naivety) of business or government.

The whole idea of capitalism is based on debt – to buy an investment or run and especially expand a business people need ‘capital’ e.g. the money to do so. And one of the mainstays of capitalism is that you can borrow the money to do so.

That is what a house mortgage. Your idea is that a person should only buy the house once they have raised all the money from their monthly paycheque. So that they have to stay with there parents for 20-30-40 years until they have the money saved.

Same with businesses, if they can only get equipment if they have raised the money means that if they have the chance at a contract they have to turn it down because they haven’t the money at hand.

And it is the same with government sometimes it needs to borrow money.

The problem is that the neo-liberal ideas that became dominant in some countries brought about a mentality that it was alright to have such government debt in up periods because there was not meant to be any low periods.

Try reading - Utopia, no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...2C+Keynes&f=36

Also Post 1403

After WWII the US’s national debt was up to around 117% of GDP it was brought down in just 36 years less than one generation (by 1981 it was down to 32.5%) until successive right wing and neo-liberal policies (tax cuts and anti-communist military spending) from the 1980 onward increased it cumulating in the profligate spending and tax cuts of the Bush Admin. At the same time the free market ideology (deregulation, hollowing out of manufacturing and a belief that the ‘new’ markets were safe) set up the financial sector for a fall and has caused the debt to rise to around 80-90% of GDP.

The problem isn’t ‘government’ the problem is a right wing, wealth supported, neo-liberal, free market ideology that hijacked the system.

Try - The Decline and Fall of the America Empire: Part One 1945-2011
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=435209&f=36

 

Indie

It is about investment

Again read - Utopia, no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...2C+Keynes&f=36

We have discussed this before - I have, and I’ve read many articles by both there supporters and opponents. I’ve written many posts explaining my opposition to neoliberal economic thinking.

But I’ve yet to see any rational or reasonable argument from you in defence of those economic ideas.

But that’s the problem – I know you are opposed to my ideas and my views but you don’t seem capable of putting up any rational or reasonable counter arguments all you seem able to do is say ‘you disagree’ or ‘you don’t see it’ but that isn’t a rational counter arguments. Which means the criticisms of your ideas still stand.

But if it was distributed and so in the hands of the majority of the people then it wouldn’t be in the governments hands.

To repeat it is about investing.

Now you would seem to prefer to have the majority of the wealth in the hands of a few so that they have the power and influence to dominate society and its governance? But not only that you seemingly want to increase that minority’s power and influence a charge you seem incapable of refuting.

 

I said that states should not be able to make laws concerning the interaction of individuals and their doctors, I did not say that states should not be able to make laws.

Abortion is a religious issue, and is an issue in american politics because it will get religious votes. I do not think that the majority may rule and make laws limiting choices by women about their own bodies simply because a book tells them that they must go fourth and make everyone belive and do as they do.

Furthermore, the simple fact is that when abortion is illegal there will be just as many abortions, and they will be dangerous coathanger deals. Ron paul does concede this in the text letlovin quoted, but then he goes on to ignore it and state a position that is incompatable with reality.

There is copious evidence to show that religion literally creates abortion. Look what happened after the bush abstinence only education changes..... look at godless socilist western european countries and their stats next to ours. Think about how the things christians try to force on others, like keeping free condoms and such out of schools or wherever, and preventing people from learning about their bodies, and trying to limit the avalibility of birth control and emergency contraception, and the stigma and shame associated with sex or having children out of wedlock, and all that jazz.... and now think about how that OBVIOUSLY will result in MORE ABORTIONS.

Abortion is a case of the christian right wanting to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want abortion, but they want to push policies that can, do, and WILL cause MORE abortions.

A better solution would be to keep government and christian ideals off of OTHER people's bodies and OUT of our legislation, which is something that ron paul, an alleged libertarian in favor of small weak government, SHOULD understand.

 

Bal,

I'm wondering where you come up with so many misconceptions. Capitalism is not based on debt. While you describe capital as 'money', it is a fact that money is the means by which we acquire our needs and wants, and at times may incur debt in order to acquire things beyond our immediate means of acquiring. As long as debts are repaid in full, capitalism works extremely well.

Why do you continuously state an idea which is yours attributing it to me? As for house loans, or loans of any kind for that matter, the intent and ability to repay should be a major factor considered by the provider, and house loans should require a sizable down payment and/or additional collateral as a form of guarantee that the borrower, not the lender should be the loser if the loan is not repaid.

Businesses can be somewhat risky, and those who invest in them providing the means by which they purchase the equipment you mention, are the risk takers who may as a result profit from or lose their investment. That's a choice one makes involving risks which should result in benefit or loss to the risk taker alone.

I doubt anyone would deny that government may at times need to borrow money. A major war or great disaster affecting the Nation as a whole might necessitate borrowing, but not simply every day governance.

The Federal government as described under the Constitution prior to 1913 could easily have avoided debt except in the case of WW I and II, and probably much less debt during the great depression.

The problems are many, government uses a baseline budgeting system, which automatically increases each years budgeting of existing programs, new programs are added and old programs are expanded, more bureaucracies are created or increased in size, creating pension and other liabilities aside from the costs of running the programs. We've allowed the Federal government to increase the complexity of nearly every problem it has involved itself in, making deficit spending a necessity and debt accumulation the only means of survival.

Actually, the debt after WW II had reached 121.96% of the GDP, and it was not wealth redistribution that reduced it, but innovation, entrepreneurs, and people going to work which allowed the free market to redistribute wealth in a way beneficial to both society and government coffers, rapidly increasing the GDP and tax revenues.

The U.S. has not been governed right of center for over a century now. While you may refer to swings left and right, none have brought us to the right of center especially since 1913.

Investment - Only a fool doubles down when what he/she is investing in is certain to fail.

Well, if you've read from those I mentioned and still have the views you hold, then what purpose would there be in my restating them to you?

Obviously, I've seen nothing I could accept as rational or reasonable presented by you either Bal, and about all I can say is that we have mutually exclusive world views that are irreconcilable.

In a free society it is not the duty or responsibility of government to redistribute the wealth created, but the duty and responsibility of each individual citizen to acquire by their own efforts according to the value they provide the society in which they live. I know that doesn't seem fair or just to you, but if you put nothing in you are not entitled to anything out, and that's where charity may step in and provide assistance as is natural. People have, will, and do invest in other people, and like any reasonable and rational thinking person, are entitled to expect some results from whatever assistance they provide, allowing them a choice to cease assisting when or where they find it to be non-productive.

How much wealth others have presents no problems at all to me. I do have a problem with wealth being exercised over our government to achieve greater power at the Federal level of government which has moved us further and further to the Left, increasing the social programs which are bankrupting our Nation. Productivity creates wealth, which redistribution can only consume. Those who produce must produce not only the needs of the society as a whole, but also be taxed enough to provide the means to be redistributed to those who produce nothing, enabling them to acquire their wants and needs from the productivity while providing nothing. Government does not provide assistance in an efficient, cost effective, and result based way when responding to what should be temporary assistance to those in need, but instead makes possible the creation of a class of people who constantly remain on the roles as "in need". which perpetuates and grows to government bureaucracy providing those needs. After all, government workers don't want to lose their jobs either, so their goal is to maintain and grow the number of persons who seek their assistance or face downsizing and budget cuts if they were to produce positive results. Government jobs are often made more secure by the production of negative results, not positive results, resulting only in loss and no profits.

What makes Ron Paul most attractive to his supporters is his recognition of the role the U.S. Constitution is supposed to play in our form of government. Our politicians have to be made accountable to their constituents, not the Democrat or Republican parties, or the wealthy, lobbyists, or labor unions. The U.S. is not a Socialist Democracy, it is a Republic, comprised of 50 sovereign States, each comprised of many sovereign individuals, something Europeans and even some Americans seem to have great difficulty in accepting.

 

What about the Federal government then, should it be able to make laws concerning the interaction of (between) individuals and their doctors?

Would it not be much more accurately described as a moral issue in American politics because it also gets votes from those who are not religious? If it simply happens to get more votes from those who are religious than from those who are not, that would appear to show that those who are religious are of a higher moral character.

Actually, the cause of abortions is unwanted pregnancies. I believe it has long been how pregnancies occur, and how they can be prevented. With the exception of forced intercourse such as rape or incest, unwanted pregnancies could easily be reduced to nearly zero. All that would require is for the male and female couples having sexual relations to take responsibility for their activities initially, eliminating government and society from having to assume the responsibility afterwards.

Although I'm not a religious person, it often appears to me that government today would like to eliminate all God based religion simply to replace it with a man made religion. It boils down to how we define what we accept to be moral issues and how we allow them to be defined and applied in controlling our societies by those who govern.

The primary purpose of the American revolution declaring independence from Great Britain and its King was not to replace it with an single encompassing sovereign government to rule over all the colonies (States), but to instead allow them the freedom they sought as sovereign individuals to govern themselves. The uniting as a single Nation was to ensure the ability to protect each individual State collectively from having their newly established freedom taken away, not to consolidate rule over them once again from a single source.

 

Abortion seems to be a religious issue, but it doesn't have to be.
If you think the evidence is that a zygote is genetically human (albeit in primitive undeveloped form), then this tiny organism has worth as a creature that could potentially live among us as a friend, neighbor, lover, fellow citizen.

If this creature has worth, that does not mean that the mother has lost her right to terminate the bond that would allow it to mature (abortion), but it does at least force to ask, "Does the mother have exclusive rights to decide the life or death of this creature or does society have a stake and a say-so in its existence or demise"?

And if the zygote grows to be viable, able to survive outside the womb with or without medical assistance, does it begin to have rights to life that may not have been so easily assumed early in its development?
In other words, if a mother chooses to keep her unborn child to a day before the expected date of birth, can it be said that she has forfeited her right to an abortion by waiting so long that the baby would survive quite well on its own?

What about abortion for the purpose of sex selection? Do girl fetuses need protection because they are perceived as less valuable than boy fetuses?

What about genetic disorders? If you knew that giving birth to a baby would result in a lifetime of pain for the child (and eventually adult) and create a burden to society and the family in that child's care, does the state have a right to force abortion to prevent society from facing the burden of caring for the malformed, mentally challenged, etc?

What about abortion for population control? If your country is crowded with just enough land to feed its population and knew that additional people would result in starvation, destruction of habitat so that other creatures became extinct, does the state have the right to impose a one-child policy as the lesser of two evils?

 

Capitalists aren't against banks charging interest are they?

I guess when I think of a 'debt based economy,' I think of theft-by-interest.

 

How should banks pay their operating costs, saving/checking account interest, utilities, salaries, etc.?

It would be more reasonable to think of theft-by-taxation. At least in the case of banks, you are not forced to make use of them.

 

They don't need to put people into life-crippling debt to be a profitable entity. Maybe if banks didn't give out so many loans people to people they knew couldn't repay to begin with, they wouldn't need such high interest rates to be just as profitable as they are now, and they wouldn't need federal bailouts to keep from crashing the world economy. They don't want to make enough money to have a comfortable, happy life. They want you to be in debt to them for the rest of your life and it disgusts me.

 

I agree, it should be illegal for banks to force people to borrow money. It should also be illegal for government to require banks to provide loans to persons who would otherwise be refused based on sound banking practices. If all loans made by banks were repaid in full, there would never be a need for the taxpayers to bail them out.

Although I'm not a strong supporter of our current banking system, I recognize there are 3 entities involved in the creation of the banking problem, the banks who are making loans, the government who is regulating them and the borrowers, and only one of them has the power to mandate activities within the banking system. Like to take a guess as to which one that might be?

 

Well, I would argue all two of them have the power to mandate the banking system, and two of them have the desire to change the banking system, and that one's just as easy of a riddle.

 

What happened to the third?

There exists a very simple solution, don't borrow from banks. There's no need for riddles.

 

Indie

But the problem is that you never seem able to actually show that I’ve misconceived anything. For example -

Capital is wealth, capitalism is the use of such wealth (normally to make a profit), the main way of doing that is to invest, you give out money in the expectation of getting back more money. So for example to take your example – people “at times may incur debt in order to acquire things beyond our immediate means of acquiring” – but in capitalism that money has interest attached – in other words the money paid back is normally greater than that lent. Capitalism works on debt it is based on debt.

Banks work on debt the money they lend out belongs to their shareholders and their depositors. So Granny Smith puts her money in the bank and the bank ‘takes it’ and invests it in something hopefully making some profits then ‘gives it back’.

But this has to be regulated so it is beneficial to society as a whole otherwise it can very easily have a negative impact.

Again I have to laugh – ok again can you back this accusation up – or is it like all your other accusations, completely unfounded?

Again you just back me up, the house loan like any loan is debt – it doesn’t matter what conditions you attach - it is still debt.

And again you back me up – the business loan like any loan is debt – it doesn’t matter what risk is taken it is still debt.

We’ve been through this before – we are in the middle of a world wide financial disaster or had you not noticed?

And again read - Try reading – Utopia, no just Keynes
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...d.php?t=328353

 

Indie

Try reading - The Decline and Fall of the America Empire: Part One 1945-2011
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/s...?t=435209&f=36

Fall in top rate tax
1945 - 94%
1970 – 70%
1982 - 50%
1990 - 28%
2010 – 33%


Rise in top levels of pay
In the 1950’s CEO pay was 25-50 times that of an average worker that has risen to 300-500 times by 2007.
A bigger gap than any other developed nation.

Trade deficit
1960 – Trade surplus of 3.5 billion
2008 – Trade deficit of 690 billion
(The last time the US posted a trade surplus was in 1975)

Decline in manufacturing
1965 - Manufacturing accounted for 53% of the US’s economy.
2004 – It accounted for 9%
The Economist (10/1/2005) stated: “For the first time since the industrial revolution, fewer than 10% of American workers are now employed in manufacturing.”

But as pointed out many times the problems seem to US present problems seem more down to neoliberal policies enacted over the past 30 years ago and a hegemonic foreign policy.

An argument you don’t seem able to counter in any rational or reasonable way.

Yes I know that’s what you think but I’m pointing out that you don’t seem able to address the criticisms of your views or to back up your statements in any rational or reasonable way.