PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul's Radical View of America



dsolo802
03-17-2012, 02:59 AM
After years of war many progressives have fallen in love with Dr. Paul's foreign policy prescription: No more foreign adventures. In the name of humanitarianism, no more slaughter of innocents, no war profiteering.

But this is where the attraction ends. There is nothing about Ron Paul's re-imagining of life in America that is the least bit attractive. It is social Darwinism on steroids. It's every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost.

Let's start with a good look at Ron Paul's views of Medicare and Social Security. To him they are unconstitutional excursions which should not exist at all.

Ron Paul Calls Social Security and Medicare Unconstitutional, Compares Them to ‘Slavery’ (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/15/166363/paul-ss-medicare-slavery/?mobile=nc)

By Ian Millhiser on May 15, 2011 at 12:25 pm

Appearing on Fox News Sunday this morning, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) defended his longstanding view that Medicare, Social Security (and pretty much everything else) violate the Constitution. At one point, Paul even claimed that letting Social Security and similar programs to move forward is just like permitting slavery:

WALLACE: You talk a lot about the Constitution. You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.

PAUL: Technically, they are. … There’s no authority [in the Constitution]. Article I, Section 8 doesn’t say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution are you getting it from? The liberals are the ones who use this General Welfare Clause. … That is such an extreme liberal viewpoint that has been mistaught in our schools for so long and that’s what we have to reverse—that very notion that you’re presenting.

WALLACE: Congressman, it’s not just a liberal view. It was the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

PAUL: And the Constitution and the courts said slavery was legal to, and we had to reverse that.

Watch it:


mzc1Dx530uc


As Chris Wallace tries to explain, Paul’s crankish view of the Constitution cannot be squared with the document’s text. The Constitution gives Congress the power to “to lay and collect taxes” and to “provide for the…general welfare of the United States,” which is exactly what Social Security does. Nor is this reading of the Constitution’s unambiguous words limited to “extreme liberals.” Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia recently told a gathering of Members of Congress that “It’s up to Congress how you want to appropriate, basically.”

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of Paul’s fellow House Republicans disagree with his bizarre view that Medicare and other government-funded insurance programs violate the Constitution. 207 Republicans voted in support of President George W. Bush’s proposal to create a federal prescription drug insurance program under Medicare, including such notables as future Speaker John Boehner, uber-tenther Scott Garrett, and future Budget chair Paul Ryan. Although the GOP more recently voted for a radical plan to phase out the Medicare program, even that slow repeal of Medicare cannot be squared with Paul’s apparent view that it violates the Constitution to allow Medicare to continue one minute longer.

Like so many other Republicans, Paul needs to learn that the Constitution is not some toy that he can take apart and reassemble to force the nation down whatever path he chooses. The Constitution’s words actually mean something, and Ron Paul is not free to ignore them.

Paul’s son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), recently said that giving people a right to healthcare is the equivalent of “slavery.”

Citizen
03-17-2012, 03:11 AM
They started off at 2% when SS was founded. Today, it's 12.4%. Raising taxes (even if only one part of a multiple-pronged solution) does little else but help stave off the inevitable. It does not fix a fundamentally flawed system.

Social Security sucks for a variety of reasons that we have already discussed but I'm going to give another. I'm going to round this off to make it easier. Lets first say that you up it to 67 years old. Lets then say you make $60K for 45 years which should allow for lower salaries at a younger age and higher salaries at an older age. A person pays in 12.4% of $60,000 for 45 years. That amounts to $334,800. Now suppose the guy takes it at 67 and lives to 74 years old which is the life expectancy for males in the US. That person collects $2,053 a month or $172,000 before the average guy kicks the bucket. That person lost 50% on their investment over their lifetime and that is at $60,000. At the SS max for taxes at a salary of $106,000, the person lost $420,000 over their lifetime. Like buying a huge house in most of America. That person could invest his money in other places and see that $334,800 original investment become a million dollars in those 45 years. Social Security is a horrible system for everyone involved.

Now, the second issue is this....Black men live about 70 years. So you would only be giving them SS for 3 years after them paying in for 45. Women would get the most out of the system because they live to about 80.

merrill
03-17-2012, 08:34 AM
By Doug Orr

The opponents of Social Security will stop at nothing in their long crusade to destroy the most efficient retirement system in the world. Opponents have taken two tracks to attack Social Security.

The first is to claim the system as it is will fail, and the second is to claim that privatization is a better way to provide for retirement security. The first claim was the favorite from 1935 to about 2001.Then the privatization claim became the vogue. Now the first is back on the table.

With corporations routinely defaulting on their pension promises, more and more workers must rely on their individual wealth to make up the difference. The stock market collapse at the turn of the millennium wiped out much of the financial wealth of middle class Americans, and the collapse of the housing bubble has wiped out much of their remaining wealth.

Making any cuts to Social Security now, either by raising the retirement age or cutting benefits, would have a huge impact on their remaining retirement income and are not necessary to “save the system.” In fact, to make the most of the modifications currently being proposed by Obama's commission would be the height of folly.

More info not rhetoric:
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0111orr.html

merrill
03-17-2012, 08:37 AM
Have opponents actually lied to the public about Social Security?

Yes. Former President George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that those who put their money in private accounts would be “guaranteed a better return than they would receive from the current Social Security system.

But every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: “the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative” for good reason.

During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than ten years when the return on stocks was negative. After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953....24 years later.

In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset, Bush was lying. If an investment-firm broker made this claim to his clients, he would be arrested and charged with stock fraud.

Michael Milken went to jail for several years for making just this type of promise about financial investments.

In fact, under the former President Bush’s privatization proposal, a 20-year-old worker joining the labor force today would have seen her guaranteed Social Security benefits reduced by 46%. Bush’s own Social Security commission admitted that private accounts were unlikely to make up for this drop in guaranteed benefits.

The brokerage firm Goldman Sachs estimated that even with private accounts, retirement income of younger workers would have been reduced by 42% compared to what they would have received if no changes were made to Social Security..

Former President Bush also misrepresented the truth when he claimed that Social Security trustees say the system will be “bankrupt” in 2042.

Bankruptcy is defined as “the inability to pay ones debts” or, when applied to a business, “shutting down as a result of insolvency.” Nothing the trustees have said or published indicates that Social Security will fold as a result of insolvency.

Until 1984, the trust fund was “pay-as-you-go,” meaning current benefits were paid using current tax revenues. In 1984, Congress raised payroll taxes to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation. As a result, the Social Security trust fund, which holds government bonds as assets, has been growing. When the baby boomers retire, these bonds will be sold to help pay their retirement benefits.

If the trust fund went to zero, Social Security would simply revert to pay-as-you-go.

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0111orr.html

nondual
03-17-2012, 08:42 AM
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

EldonG
03-17-2012, 09:13 AM
Citizen, you do make valid points, and it's arguable that the retirement ages might work better if based on the longevity of groups of people, but that opens a barrel of worms I doubt we want to get into - the type of work you do can be more limiting to your longevity than ethnicity, housing conditions, pollution levels...the list could be gigantic.

No, you don't get 100% on the average, but that's because SS also helps those less fortunate.

merrill
03-17-2012, 09:39 AM
What's always forgotten: Republicans cost this nation too much money! White collar crooks wreck havoc on citizens retirement plans....I'll say.

1. During the Reagan/Bush years and the Bush/Cheney years millions upon millions upon millions of good hard working americans saw their retirement plans go up in smoke.

Both big time home loan scams took the economy down the tubes. In both instances several million also lost their homes and medical insurance coverage,

2. In addition millions of senior citizens found themselves back in the job market which also had gone to hell because of Reagan/Bush and Bush/Cheney wreckanomics aka home loan scams. Employers are not eager to hire people 65 and over.

These senior citizens lost their retirement plans that were being supplemented with Social Security Insurance and out of the clear blue all they had was Social Security Insurance.

3. ENRON employees watched their retirement plans go up in smoke. Yes they were grateful for Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance.

4. Retirement plans have taken a beating on Wall Street over the years. More people should consider my grandfather's advice he shared with me: "If a person cannot afford to lose money they should stay away from Wall Street." This advice from an attorney who loved messing with Wall Street 5 days a week till he died. This advice was stimulated as a result of 15 year old me getting the urge to do as my grandfather did.

My grandfather laid it out this way: He took a pencil from his pocket and poked two holes in the ground. The left hole was my ass. The right hole was a hole in the ground. Bear in mind both are holes in ground. He then asked where is your ass? I chose the left hole in the ground. He looked me straight in the eye and said "You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground". It took a few seconds but I got the point.

Hudaman
03-17-2012, 10:10 AM
What's always forgotten: Republicans cost this nation too much money! White collar crooks wreck havoc on citizens retirement plans....I'll say.

1. During the Reagan/Bush years and the Bush/Cheney years millions upon millions upon millions of good hard working americans saw their retirement plans go up in smoke.

Both big time home loan scams took the economy down the tubes. In both instances several million also lost their homes and medical insurance coverage,

2. In addition millions of senior citizens found themselves back in the job market which also had gone to hell because of Reagan/Bush and Bush/Cheney wreckanomics aka home loan scams. Employers are not eager to hire people 65 and over.

These senior citizens lost their retirement plans that were being supplemented with Social Security Insurance and out of the clear blue all they had was Social Security Insurance.

3. ENRON employees watched their retirement plans go up in smoke. Yes they were grateful for Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance.

4. Retirement plans have taken a beating on Wall Street over the years. More people should consider my grandfather's advice he shared with me: "If a person cannot afford to lose money they should stay away from Wall Street." This advice from an attorney who loved messing with Wall Street 5 days a week till he died. This advice was stimulated as a result of 15 year old me getting the urge to do as my grandfather did.

My grandfather laid it out this way: He took a pencil from his pocket and poked two holes in the ground. The left hole was my ass. The right hole was a hole in the ground. Bear in mind both are holes in ground. He then asked where is your ass? I chose the left hole in the ground. He looked me straight in the eye and said "You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground". It took a few seconds but I got the point.

Can you keep your spam to one thread?

nondual
03-17-2012, 10:14 AM
Can you keep your spam to one thread?
Isn't politics supposed to be about selling ideas?

Hudaman
03-17-2012, 10:16 AM
Isn't politics supposed to be about selling ideas?

Yes. It is not supposed to be about posting your bullshit spam in every thread. Claiming you are selling ideas is like claiming that my inbox is full of legitimate advertising. No, it's spam. And so is this. I shouldn't have to read the same goddamn post in six different threads which are only loosely related to the OP.

Hudaman
03-17-2012, 10:19 AM
They started off at 2% when SS was founded. Today, it's 12.4%. Raising taxes (even if only one part of a multiple-pronged solution) does little else but help stave off the inevitable. It does not fix a fundamentally flawed system.

Social Security sucks for a variety of reasons that we have already discussed but I'm going to give another. I'm going to round this off to make it easier. Lets first say that you up it to 67 years old. Lets then say you make $60K for 45 years which should allow for lower salaries at a younger age and higher salaries at an older age. A person pays in 12.4% of $60,000 for 45 years. That amounts to $334,800. Now suppose the guy takes it at 67 and lives to 74 years old which is the life expectancy for males in the US. That person collects $2,053 a month or $172,000 before the average guy kicks the bucket. That person lost 50% on their investment over their lifetime and that is at $60,000. At the SS max for taxes at a salary of $106,000, the person lost $420,000 over their lifetime. Like buying a huge house in most of America. That person could invest his money in other places and see that $334,800 original investment become a million dollars in those 45 years. Social Security is a horrible system for everyone involved.

Now, the second issue is this....Black men live about 70 years. So you would only be giving them SS for 3 years after them paying in for 45. Women would get the most out of the system because they live to about 80.

:lmao2: :lmao2:

Please, please, do not ever try to get a job as an acturial. Should I point out the massive flaw in your logic that renders it completely idiotic? Or would you like to correct it yourself before I make you look really stupid?

Cookie Parker
03-17-2012, 10:29 AM
A Libertarian is as much owned and operated by the upper 1% as the republican/tea party is.

BTW, have the Rand's refused their unconstitutional government run and taxpayer paid for health care?

nondual
03-17-2012, 12:09 PM
I shouldn't have to read the same goddamn post in six different threads which are only loosely related to the OP.
Why didn't you instead of opening them, skipped them? :dunno:

Brian_W
03-17-2012, 12:09 PM
A Libertarian is as much owned and operated by the upper 1% as the republican/tea party is.

BTW, have the Rand's refused their unconstitutional government run and taxpayer paid for health care?

And I guess we can assume that, because of Dr. Magneto Paul's rock solid principles, he's never accepted Medicare payments in his private practice?

merrill
03-17-2012, 12:38 PM
When the information applies to any thread yes it should be posted. That's the nature of the beast.

merrill
03-17-2012, 12:44 PM
A Libertarian is as much owned and operated by the upper 1% as the republican/tea party is.

BTW, have the Rand's refused their unconstitutional government run and taxpayer paid for health care?

None of them do.

So so so many complain that government is too big yet never leave the comfort of BIG Government and automatic pay increases@$4,000 annually.

I say not only do they enjoy the wage and benefits packages they also enjoy the corrupt practice of insider trading to protect THEIR investments. THEIR investments get in the way of practical legislation such as IMPROVED Medicare Insurance for all.

EldonG
03-17-2012, 12:44 PM
Doesn't look all that radical in some ways...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/25/MNCJ1NC7I4.DTL&ao=all

Darmosiel
03-17-2012, 01:01 PM
Like most Conservatives RP has a selective view of the Constitution and is more than willing to change the parts that don't fit his askew vision and agenda.

nondual
03-17-2012, 01:14 PM
Just ask any of them what is Ron Paul's plan to reduce economic disparity. All I have heard him say is that it is not a real problem and that the invisible hand of the free market would automatically take care of it. :dunno:

Vilifier of Zombies
03-17-2012, 01:17 PM
"Free Bananas!" ~ Ron Paul

merrill
03-17-2012, 01:24 PM
Just ask any of them what is Ron Paul's plan to reduce economic disparity. All I have heard him say is that it is not a real problem and that the invisible hand of the free market would automatically take care of it. :dunno:

The answer is simple: jobs jobs jobs jobs jobs jobs that pay absolutely no less than $17.50 per hour.

Free Market can't do it for it does not exist. Corp America is over loaded with tax benefits which effectively cancels out the Free Market and gives the world of big box stores what is known as a "leg up" over the small business competitors.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/18/free_lunch_how_the_wealthiest_americans

http://www.uua.org/events/generalassembly/2008/commonthreads/115777.shtml

EldonG
03-17-2012, 01:26 PM
"Free Bananas!" ~ Ron Paul
Is that 'free bananas' or 'free the bananas'...I'm never quite sure, with Paul.

nondual
03-17-2012, 01:39 PM
The answer is simple: jobs jobs jobs jobs jobs jobs that pay absolutely no less than $17.50 per hour.

Free Market can't do it for it does not exist. Corp America is over loaded with tax benefits which effectively cancels out the Free Market and gives the world of big box stores what is known as a "leg up" over the small business competitors.

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/18/free_lunch_how_the_wealthiest_americans

http://www.uua.org/events/generalassembly/2008/commonthreads/115777.shtml
According to Reaganomics, Wall Street' record profits should've been trickling down at least for the last couple years, but instead of spending, they are either hoarding it, or spending on India and China's economies.

More proof that Trickle Down economics is a myth.

Bruce LeeRoy
03-17-2012, 01:40 PM
I know this board LOVES spin, but here is the detailed plan.

Fucking liberals and there war mongering fearful weak minds.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/


SYNOPSIS:
America is the greatest nation in human history. Our respect for individual liberty, free markets, and limited constitutional government produced the strongest, most prosperous country in the world. But, we have drifted far from our founding principles, and America is in crisis. Ron Paul’s “Restore America” plan slams on the brakes and puts America on a return to constitutional government. It is bold but achievable. Through the bully pulpit of the presidency, the power of the Veto, and, most importantly, the united voice of freedom-loving Americans, we can implement fundamental reforms.

DELIVERS A TRUE BALANCED BUDGET IN YEAR THREE OF DR. PAUL’S PRESIDENCY:

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who doesn’t just talk about balancing the budget, but who has a full plan to get it done.

SPENDING:

Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul’s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels.

ENTITLEMENTS:

Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out. Block grants Medicaid and other welfare programs to allow States the flexibility and ingenuity they need to solve their own unique problems without harming those currently relying on the programs.

CUTTING GOVERNMENT WASTE:
Makes a 10% reduction in the federal workforce, slashes Congressional pay and perks, and curbs excessive federal travel. To stand with the American People, President Paul will take a salary of $39,336, approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker.

TAXES:

Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, making America competitive in the global market. Allows American companies to repatriate capital without additional taxation, spurring trillions in new investment. Extends all Bush tax cuts. Abolishes the Death Tax. Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing families to build a nest egg.

REGULATION:

Repeals ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley. Mandates REINS-style requirements for thorough congressional review and authorization before implementing any new regulations issued by bureaucrats. President Paul will also cancel all onerous regulations previously issued by Executive Order.

MONETARY POLICY:

Conducts a full audit of the Federal Reserve and implements competing currency legislation to
strengthen the dollar and stabilize inflation.

CONCLUSION:

Dr. Paul is the only candidate with a plan to cut spending and truly balance the budget. This is the only plan that will deliver what America needs in these difficult times: Major regulatory relief, large spending cuts, sound monetary policy, and a balanced budget.

http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Discretionary-Spending1.png
http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/mandatory-spending.png
http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/misc-savings2.png
http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/summary.png

nondual
03-17-2012, 01:57 PM
In other words...

http://i1230.photobucket.com/albums/ee485/cyberdyno2/ronpaul-full.jpg

EldonG
03-17-2012, 02:17 PM
I'm not worried about Paul...he has so little support, if they were underwear, the elastic would be broken.

Kanadesaga
03-17-2012, 02:39 PM
In other words...

http://i1230.photobucket.com/albums/ee485/cyberdyno2/ronpaul-full.jpg

exactamundo!:thumbsup:

Bruce LeeRoy
03-17-2012, 02:48 PM
I'm not worried about Paul...he has so little support, if they were underwear, the elastic would be broken.

He has more support then any of the others, shit he just recently drew in 5000 in Obamaland or Obomination as I like to call it.

Go back to sleep, sometimes you have to actually look for things you want answers to, your blatant touristy attempts to surmise the Paul campaign is pathetic at best.

uSjWlnAVT6Y

Bruce LeeRoy
03-17-2012, 02:49 PM
In other words...

http://i1230.photobucket.com/albums/ee485/cyberdyno2/ronpaul-full.jpg

You can only post a picture and that just sums it up for you liberals huh?

Post the details, I know you have no clue what you are talking about.

Come on, I dare you. Post some of these items in this image and I will school you, as I did in the other thread.

dsolo802
03-17-2012, 02:57 PM
While we are busy imagining an America without Social security, Medicare, Universal Health Care and Medicaid, don’t forget to factor in the impact of Paul’s version of Globalization. He is not only an ardent supporter of the same globalization game which has wrecked American job security and upward mobility, he is against trade agreements which at least pay lip service to “level playing ground” and to environmental protection. Why? Also on the premise that they are unconstitutional. http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/free-trade/

Does it matter to Paul whether China for example, achieves its winning competitive edge through a conscientiously applied program of civil rights abuse and environmental devastation? Absolutely not. From Sept 17, 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate (http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Free_Trade.htm) where Ron Paul was the only one 7 participants who voted no on the question, “Would you make future trade with China contingent on them measurably improving their record on religious freedom & human rights?”

In fact, Ron Paul’s vision of civil rights protection in America stands out - like a mangled thumb. He was the only Congressman voting no on legislation commemorating the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. His reasoning is even more startling than the vote he took:


"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society." http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/

Consider then, an America without social safety net, business provided pensions, job security and upward mobility. What does Ron Paul stand for? The “right” of every individual to fend for themselves against the onslaught of unfetter ed capitalism. On the unfettered capitalism front, Paul not only “sees” but raises the ante on what usually passes as “unfettered” capitalism today. Each of us would be left to protect ourselves from foods and other products and services that would be uninspected and unregulated, offered by corporations that would not pay a penny into the public coffer. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/taxes/ (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/taxes/) Paul according to this web site would turn the lights out on the IRS altogether.

But wait – there's more!

So, what, according to Ron Paul, is it Constitutional for the Federal government to do? The argument against the social safety net is that a Constitution which specifically does provide for Congress to lay tax and provide for the public welfare does not specifically enumerate a power to create "an insurance program for people". It is good to consider what things we’ve come to take for granted that are also not mentioned by name in the Constitution.

By force of the same "reasoning", virtually every national response the Federal Government has ever mounted to every truly national challenge- from environmental protection, education and pure research, to infrastructure and Civil Rights protection – none of these would pass Ron Paul’s Constitutional muster.


“I believe the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else. In other words, the state as referee rather than an active participant in our society.” http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1106&Itemid=69

Ron Paul’s vision for America is not just the Social Darwinist program of today’s GOP, it is that on super steroids. IF the GOP is the party of blind faith in the magical power of unfettered capitalism to promote the public good, Paul is Pope of that religion. His Bible? The Constitution that never was.

Kanadesaga
03-17-2012, 03:03 PM
that about sums it up! Very well done. always good to hoist them upon their own petard.

nondual
03-17-2012, 03:20 PM
While we are busy imagining an America without Social security, Medicare, Universal Health Care and Medicaid, don’t forget to factor in the impact of Paul’s version of Globalization. He is not only an ardent supporter of the same globalization game which has wrecked American job security and upward mobility, he is against trade agreements which at least pay lip service to “level playing ground” and to environmental protection. Why? Also on the premise that they are unconstitutional. http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/free-trade/

Does it matter to Paul whether China for example, achieves its winning competitive edge through a conscientiously applied program of civil rights abuse and environmental devastation? Absolutely not. From Sept 17, 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate (http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Free_Trade.htm) where Ron Paul was the only one 7 participants who voted no on the question, “Would you make future trade with China contingent on them measurably improving their record on religious freedom & human rights?”

In fact, Ron Paul’s vision of civil rights protection in America stands out - like a mangled thumb. He was the only Congressman voting no on legislation commemorating the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. His reasoning is even more startling than the vote he took:


"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society." http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/

Consider then, an America without social safety net, business provided pensions, job security and upward mobility. What does Ron Paul stand for? The “right” of every individual to fend for themselves against the onslaught of unfetter ed capitalism. On the unfettered capitalism front, Paul not only “sees” but raises the ante on what usually passes as “unfettered” capitalism today. Each of us would be left to protect ourselves from foods and other products and services that would be uninspected and unregulated, offered by corporations that would not pay a penny into the public coffer. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/taxes/ (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/taxes/) Paul according to this web site would turn the lights out on the IRS altogether.

But wait – there's more!

So, what, according to Ron Paul, is it Constitutional for the Federal government to do? The argument against the social safety net is that a Constitution which specifically does provide for Congress to lay tax and provide for the public welfare does not specifically enumerate a power to create "an insurance program for people". It is good to consider what things we’ve come to take for granted that are also not mentioned by name in the Constitution.

By force of the same "reasoning", virtually every national response the Federal Government has ever mounted to every truly national challenge- from environmental protection, education and pure research, to infrastructure and Civil Rights protection – none of these would pass Ron Paul’s Constitutional muster.


“I believe the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else. In other words, the state as referee rather than an active participant in our society.” http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1106&Itemid=69

Ron Paul’s vision for America is not just the Social Darwinist program of today’s GOP, it is that on super steroids. IF the GOP is the party of blind faith in the magical power of unfettered capitalism to promote the public good, Paul is Pope of that religion. His Bible? The Constitution that never was.
:thumbsup: Ron Paul is a dangerous man.

Vilifier of Zombies
03-17-2012, 03:41 PM
Is that 'free bananas' or 'free the bananas'...I'm never quite sure, with Paul.

It's just "Free Bananas."


igQlbesF0zA

Vilifier of Zombies
03-17-2012, 03:42 PM
"Bring on the steam croutons!" ~ Ron Paul

dsolo802
03-17-2012, 03:48 PM
"Bring on the steam croutons!" ~ Ron PaulDamn, had I known that BLR produced such a fantastic critique of Dr. Paul's vision I would not had to bother with my lame ass effort!

I wondered what his position was on steam croutons - Bam - and there it was!

Darmosiel
03-17-2012, 03:51 PM
It's just "Free Bananas."


igQlbesF0zA

:lmao2: :lmao2: :thumbsup:

Vilifier of Zombies
03-17-2012, 04:00 PM
Damn, had I known that BLR produced such a fantastic critique of Dr. Paul's vision I would not had to bother with my lame ass effort!

I wondered what his position was on steam croutons - Bam - and there it was!


BLR is great.

I hadn't noticed the Newt BLR til today...it's almost as funny as the Paul soundbite.



BagYRDEFvy0

Bruce LeeRoy
03-17-2012, 04:08 PM
While we are busy imagining an America without Social security, Medicare, Universal Health Care and Medicaid, don’t forget to factor in the impact of Paul’s version of Globalization. He is not only an ardent supporter of the same globalization game which has wrecked American job security and upward mobility, he is against trade agreements which at least pay lip service to “level playing ground” and to environmental protection. Why? Also on the premise that they are unconstitutional. http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/free-trade/

Pure fallacy, Ron Paul wants a FREE MARKET, not the MANAGED TRADE agreements what are the reason why these monopolies garner si much power in the markets, but you don't understand that because you're a socialist. This is pretty basic too, how you can support the same system that got this country this way under crony capitalism is ridiculous.


Does it matter to Paul whether China for example, achieves its winning competitive edge through a conscientiously applied program of civil rights abuse and environmental devastation? Absolutely not. From Sept 17, 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate (http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Free_Trade.htm) where Ron Paul was the only one 7 participants who voted no on the question, “Would you make future trade with China contingent on them measurably improving their record on religious freedom & human rights?”

Its another country, China can do whatever it is they want to do, the people of China needs to protest this. Also youre a fucking hypocrite, I bet you STILL shop at China to buy these goods, this is how the market works, you dont like what china is doing then DO NOT SEND THEM MONEY TO OPPRESS THEIR PEOPLE.

Your liberal making the world safe for democracy through war is pure bullshit. You can only make these empty, unfounded and absolutely CLUELESS aumptions while supporting China in the same oppression.


In fact, Ron Paul’s vision of civil rights protection in America stands out - like a mangled thumb. He was the only Congressman voting no on legislation commemorating the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. His reasoning is even more startling than the vote he took:


"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society." http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/

What part of a "free" society do you have a problem with? If an African American Business owner does not want to do business with White consumers, he has that right. This is nothing more then fear mongering bullshit, all or nothing, OH NOES!!! nonsense.

There is NOTHING to suggest that this in fact would be the case, its just a very bad business idea to have these kinds of bigoted business practices. But in a free society people have the right to be an asshole's.

Youre just saying here you agree with "free" or free speech as long as YOU agree with it. Complete liberal bullshit.


Consider then, an America without social safety net, business provided pensions, job security and upward mobility. What does Ron Paul stand for? The “right” of every individual to fend for themselves against the onslaught of unfetter ed capitalism. On the unfettered capitalism front, Paul not only “sees” but raises the ante on what usually passes as “unfettered” capitalism today. Each of us would be left to protect ourselves from foods and other products and services that would be uninspected and unregulated, offered by corporations that would not pay a penny into the public coffer. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/taxes/ (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/taxes/) Paul according to this web site would turn the lights out on the IRS altogether.

Again more bullshit, there is NOTHING to suggest ANY OF THIS IS EVEN POSSIBLE. While he would like to have a system that actually works unlike what we have today.

Also this is just a ideological changes about the Role of Govt, no one has ever said this is even a priority.

Also, today's youth agree's with Ron Paul, so this is just for your own fyi



So, what, according to Ron Paul, is it Constitutional for the Federal government to do? The argument against the social safety net is that a Constitution which specifically does provide for Congress to lay tax and provide for the public welfare does not specifically enumerate a power to create "an insurance program for people". It is good to consider what things we’ve come to take for granted that are also not mentioned by name in the Constitution.

By force of the same "reasoning", virtually every national response the Federal Government has ever mounted to every truly national challenge- from environmental protection, education and pure research, to infrastructure and Civil Rights protection – none of these would pass Ron Paul’s Constitutional muster.

NOt only is a bads investment, its going to run out of money. The return on SSI is only 2.5% whch is HORRIBLE. ROn Paul also only wants to ALLOW people to "opt out" of SSI, no one has ever said he wants to get rid of anything.

This is just more circular thinking, fear mongering, and absolute clueless conclusions.




“I believe the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else. In other words, the state as referee rather than an active participant in our society.” http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1106&Itemid=69

Ron Paul’s vision for America is not just the Social Darwinist program of today’s GOP, it is that on super steroids. IF the GOP is the party of blind faith in the magical power of unfettered capitalism to promote the public good, Paul is Pope of that religion. His Bible? The Constitution that never was.

The GOP on super steroids? This is HILARIOUS. :lmao2:

The GOP Hates Paul, this much is obvious to a casual tourist like yourself.

Youre a socialist, Paul is for individual liberty.

You only have an argument if you lie or take what RP has said out of context.

You are being intellectually dishonest in this post. Or maybe you really are this stupid.

I dont know, or care.

Bruce LeeRoy
03-17-2012, 04:09 PM
:thumbsup: Ron Paul is a dangerous man.

Coming from a person who wants to trade sea shells for Oil, this is really funny.

Darmosiel
03-17-2012, 04:12 PM
:thumbsup: Ron Paul is a dangerous man.

Yes. RP is a dangerous man. Fortunately most Republicans seem to understand how out in orbit RP is. If Romney chooses RP as a running mate it will push even more moderate Republicans to the Dem side.

Bruce LeeRoy
03-17-2012, 04:14 PM
Yes. RP is a dangerous man. Fortunately most Republicans seem to understand how out in orbit RP is. If Romney chooses RP as a running mate it will push even more moderate Republicans to the Dem side.

:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

WOW, youre cluelessness knows no bounds.

RP is not going to team with Romney, NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

You are hook, line ans sinker with this media bullshit.

And from someone who thinks they know about media slant, this is hilarious.

What a fool

dsolo802
03-17-2012, 04:58 PM
Yes. RP is a dangerous man. Fortunately most Republicans seem to understand how out in orbit RP is. If Romney chooses RP as a running mate it will push even more moderate Republicans to the Dem side.Agree with you D. It would be a very scary alliance indeed. the guy who is the poster child for vulture capitalism at home teaming up with the guy who would dismantle the Constitution AND begin in earnest the race to the bottom of the toilet abroad. Can't you just smell the apple pie wafting off of that ticket?

EldonG
03-17-2012, 05:44 PM
VOZ, Bravo...just bravo. Those are hilarious.

dsolo802
03-17-2012, 05:48 PM
Pure fallacy, Ron Paul wants a FREE MARKET, not the MANAGED TRADE agreements what are the reason why these monopolies garner si much power in the markets, but you don't understand that because you're a socialist.I got it right: He calls managed little things like "bureaucratic" oversight to prevent slave and child labor, worker safety, and protection against a rape of the environment. His solution: That we should compete by doing the same at home.


Its another country, China can do whatever it is they want to do, the people of China needs to protest this.Ah some honesty. Good on you. Yes, Paul sees nothing wrong with outsourcing child and slave labor and ravaging of some other country's environment. Presumably you'd like for us to compete in the manner Dr. Paul suggests - competing on the basis of how much we are willing to exploit our own children and destroy our own environment. Wheee, this free market and free trade shit is really heady!


Also youre a fucking hypocriteYou know zippo about me, Bozo.



Your liberal making the world safe for democracy through war is pure bullshitI am not for making the world safe for democracy. Just because Paul is right on somethings does not mean he is right about all.


What part of a "free" society do you have a problem with?I draw the line with misogyny, racism, and bigotry of all kind. No, Bozo, you are not free to oppress other people. That tends to violate their rights to be free.


Youre just saying here you agree with "free" or free speech as long as YOU agree with it. Complete liberal bullshit.I'm for your right to dissemble, and lie, and distort and misinform all you please. And it's my right to call you on it. You see how that free speech thing works?


Again more bullshit, there is NOTHING to suggest ANY OF THIS IS EVEN POSSIBLE.translation: If he can find a way to do "it", he will. and thank you for that rare flash of honesty.


Also this is just a ideological changes about the Role of Govt, no one has ever said this is even a priority. If he has his way, business will be free to have its way with all of us. Sorry, for not thinking his vision of national ass rape is appealing.


Also, today's youth agree's with Ron Paul, so this is just for your own fyiOh those kids of today! I support ass rape as a personal choice.


NOt only is a bads investment, its going to run out of money. The return on SSI is only 2.5% whch is HORRIBLE. ROn Paul also only wants to ALLOW people to "opt out" of SSI, no one has ever said he wants to get rid of anything.He thinks its unconstitutional Bozo. That means if he is President he will try to get rid of it - if he honors his oath of office, that is.


The GOP on super steroids? This is HILARIOUS.Nobody who takes a good hard look at what this guys is saying will think it very funny at all.


The GOP Hates Paul, this much is obvious to a casual tourist like yourself.Because even they know Paul goes too far. And that is precise what this casual tourist has accurately observed.


Youre a socialist, Paul is for individual liberty. Yup, I'm for the Constitution as it actually is, and Paul wants the freedom to make up shit about it.


You only have an argument if you lie or take what RP has said out of context. I've been quite fair. A lot more fair than the "free market" will be free with the lot of us.


You are being intellectually dishonest in this post. Or maybe you really are this stupid.

I dont know, or care.I predict you do care so much, that you will attempt to misquote and obscure what I have written with more made up stuff in support of your hero.

I am not impressed.

Citizen
03-17-2012, 05:59 PM
:lmao2: :lmao2:

Please, please, do not ever try to get a job as an acturial. Should I point out the massive flaw in your logic that renders it completely idiotic? Or would you like to correct it yourself before I make you look really stupid?

Why do you have to ask? I know because its not flawed.

Hudaman
03-17-2012, 07:25 PM
Why do you have to ask? I know because its not flawed.


Gonna walk right into the wall aren't ya little guy? What do you think the life expectancy of a 67 year old man is? Seven years?

You really don't get it do you? Too funny.


:lmao2:

merrill
03-17-2012, 07:28 PM
Wall Street is for the very rich who can afford to lose money.

"The return on SSI is only 2.5% whch is HORRIBLE."

On Wall Street all of a plan can be lost and/or may not be enough in the plan when retirement time comes. Wall Street investing = zero guarantee.

At least with 2.5% a retiree will have $1,000 a month to supplement any other plan or at least supplement the monthly wages. Who is going to say NO to a $1,000 per month supplement?

Certainly not I nor will I ever turn down Medicare for that would be reckless.

*Myth: Social Security is going broke?
Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.

After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits—and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers' retirement decades ago. Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

*Myth: Social Security adds to the deficit
Reality: It's not just wrong—it's impossible! By law, Social Security's funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.

*Why in the hell would anyone want to trust Wall Street with trillions of our tax dollars after watching republicans and Wall Street destroy the economy TWICE since 1980 plus put 20 million out of work and ruin retirement plans?

Wall Street is for the very rich who can afford to lose money.

Bruce LeeRoy
03-17-2012, 07:59 PM
I got it right: He calls managed little things like "bureaucratic" oversight to prevent slave and child labor, worker safety, and protection against a rape of the environment. His solution: That we should compete by doing the same at home.

Ah some honesty. Good on you. Yes, Paul sees nothing wrong with outsourcing child and slave labor and ravaging of some other country's environment. Presumably you'd like for us to compete in the manner Dr. Paul suggests - competing on the basis of how much we are willing to exploit our own children and destroy our own environment. Wheee, this free market and free trade shit is really heady!

You know zippo about me, Bozo.


I am not for making the world safe for democracy. Just because Paul is right on somethings does not mean he is right about all.

I draw the line with misogyny, racism, and bigotry of all kind. No, Bozo, you are not free to oppress other people. That tends to violate their rights to be free.

I'm for your right to dissemble, and lie, and distort and misinform all you please. And it's my right to call you on it. You see how that free speech thing works?

translation: If he can find a way to do "it", he will. and thank you for that rare flash of honesty.

If he has his way, business will be free to have its way with all of us. Sorry, for not thinking his vision of national ass rape is appealing.

Oh those kids of today! I support ass rape as a personal choice.

He thinks its unconstitutional Bozo. That means if he is President he will try to get rid of it - if he honors his oath of office, that is.

Nobody who takes a good hard look at what this guys is saying will think it very funny at all.

Because even they know Paul goes too far. And that is precise what this casual tourist has accurately observed.

Yup, I'm for the Constitution as it actually is, and Paul wants the freedom to make up shit about it.

I've been quite fair. A lot more fair than the "free market" will be free with the lot of us.

I predict you do care so much, that you will attempt to misquote and obscure what I have written with more made up stuff in support of your hero.

I am not impressed.

If this was a bigger forum with actual readers that are not regular trolls I would take the time to articulate my argument but thats just not the case.


There is a reason you are called the Rainbows and Unicorn party. you only like the idea of these things like the EPA, USDA, Dept of Ed etc


The only problem is they are FAILED ideas, right now the USDA is allowing horse meat into the stores, pink slime, chemicals known ti be bad for you? Yet you still support this failure.

What about the EPA, right now Fukushima is going off, that is 6 nuclear reactors that have already shown traces of harmful radiation on the whole west cost, what does the EPA do when this happens? They shut down there monitoring stations, and all this is all done now on a private level.

So while you may say you like the ideas of these agencies, its also the same agencies who are the biggest offenders yet you support that.

Youre all Rainbows and Unicorns.

You have shit, nothing more then an idea which has failed.

Thats just the truth.

I could go on about the MANY failed agencies who are actually the biggest offenders, and only keep these same corporate powers in power.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-NXXQYXHmnyU/TaYssRXWSoI/AAAAAAAABso/XqauzbbX_9E/s1600/obama-rainbow-e1285698741736.jpg

Ron Paul represents an ideological change, not some wishy washy empty liberal rhetoric that means nada.

Citizen
03-17-2012, 08:06 PM
Gonna walk right into the wall aren't ya little guy? What do you think the life expectancy of a 67 year old man is? Seven years?

You really don't get it do you? Too funny.


:lmao2:

Why do you hate black people?

Kanadesaga
03-17-2012, 08:09 PM
Why do you hate black people?
Why do you?

Hudaman
03-17-2012, 08:11 PM
Why do you hate black people?

What is the life expectancy of a 67 year old male?
:hi:

Wow you are dumb. Dont get it do you?

Vilifier of Zombies
03-17-2012, 08:26 PM
VOZ, Bravo...just bravo. Those are hilarious.


Oh there's more...my favorites have also been the Santorum and Romney soundbites...




e9L9A1IMTQo

js3BYcHmBhE

The Herman Cain soundbite was also pretty funny.

"Nachos and hogwash...!" ~ Herman Cain


uE5xZKszXMQ

Citizen
03-17-2012, 08:45 PM
What is the life expectancy of a 67 year old male?
:hi:

Wow you are dumb. Dont get it do you?

What is the life expectancy of an average African American?

Hudaman
03-17-2012, 08:55 PM
What is the life expectancy of an average African American?

I see you are avoiding the subject, dimwit. I'll explain it. The average life expectancy of a 67 year old male is 82 years, not 74 as you suggested. Oops. How embarrasing.

Citizen
03-17-2012, 09:01 PM
Is a 67 year old is just starting out paying SS??? What the fuck?

Citizen
03-17-2012, 09:03 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy


United States 78.3 overall 75.6 male 80.8 female

BOOM!

Hudaman
03-17-2012, 09:28 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy



BOOM!

You really are this stupid, arent you? It doesn't matter what the life expectancy of a newborn is you twit. The average male who reaches age 67 can expect to live 15 years. You dont have a clue, do you?

Hudaman
03-18-2012, 09:55 AM
You really are this stupid, arent you? It doesn't matter what the life expectancy of a newborn is you twit. The average male who reaches age 67 can expect to live 15 years. You dont have a clue, do you?

<crickets>

:lmao2: :lmao2:

You had a bad day yesterday, didn't you citizen?

Citizen
03-18-2012, 10:02 AM
You really are this stupid, arent you? It doesn't matter what the life expectancy of a newborn is you twit. The average male who reaches age 67 can expect to live 15 years. You dont have a clue, do you?

PEOPLE DON'T START OUT PAYING INTO SOCIAL SECURITY AT AGE 67 YOU MINDLESS JACKASS!!!!!

Citizen
03-18-2012, 10:08 AM
btw, some people pay 3 times more into social security than other people and yet get the same amount. Liberals hate the elderly and hate investments or only investments that are a guaranteed loss like SS.

Hudaman
03-18-2012, 10:16 AM
PEOPLE DON'T START OUT PAYING INTO SOCIAL SECURITY AT AGE 67 YOU MINDLESS JACKASS!!!!!

Not what we're talking about. You claimed, very specifically, that on average a 67 year old man would only collect seven years of social security. You made that claim because you are an idiot that doesn't understand the concept of life expectancy. I have now corrected you. Carry on with your tilt.

Hudaman
03-18-2012, 10:18 AM
They started off at 2% when SS was founded. Today, it's 12.4%. Raising taxes (even if only one part of a multiple-pronged solution) does little else but help stave off the inevitable. It does not fix a fundamentally flawed system.

Social Security sucks for a variety of reasons that we have already discussed but I'm going to give another. I'm going to round this off to make it easier. Lets first say that you up it to 67 years old. Lets then say you make $60K for 45 years which should allow for lower salaries at a younger age and higher salaries at an older age. A person pays in 12.4% of $60,000 for 45 years. That amounts to $334,800. Now suppose the guy takes it at 67 and lives to 74 years old which is the life expectancy for males in the US. That person collects $2,053 a month or $172,000 before the average guy kicks the bucket. That person lost 50% on their investment over their lifetime and that is at $60,000. At the SS max for taxes at a salary of $106,000, the person lost $420,000 over their lifetime. Like buying a huge house in most of America. That person could invest his money in other places and see that $334,800 original investment become a million dollars in those 45 years. Social Security is a horrible system for everyone involved.

Now, the second issue is this....Black men live about 70 years. So you would only be giving them SS for 3 years after them paying in for 45. Women would get the most out of the system because they live to about 80.

You are an idiot. I am always willing to point that out to you.

Citizen
03-18-2012, 10:32 AM
What the fuck? OMG you are such an imbecile. You're even quoting me to show you're wrong. Life expectancy. Can. You. Fucking. Read?

Hudaman
03-18-2012, 10:37 AM
What the fuck? OMG you are such an imbecile. You're even quoting me to show you're wrong. Life expectancy. Can. You. Fucking. Read?

Of course I can read. You don't understand life expectancy, because you are a fucking moron. The life expectancy of a 67 year old man is 82 (an additional 15 years). Therefore the 'at birth' life expectancy has nothing to do with the expected benefits of that person. Even when I explain it to you, you don't understand your basic, fundamental mistake. No surprise you are a right wing nutter, I guess.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

Read it. Sorry, there are no pictures, so you probably won't understand it.

Citizen
03-18-2012, 10:40 AM
YOU FIRST HAVE TO GET TO 67!!!!! You just don't all of a sudden become 67 years old! Holy shit!

Hudaman
03-18-2012, 10:41 AM
YOU FIRST HAVE TO GET TO 67!!!!! You just don't all of a sudden become 67 years old! Holy shit!

Your example presumed an individual age 67. So, in your example, the person already got there, dumbfuck.


Lets first say that you up it to 67 years old

How old are you when you opt in at 67? I think you'd be.... wait for it.... 67.

Citizen
03-18-2012, 10:48 AM
Fact is the average person lives to 74 years old. Most people won't start collecting until their mid 60s. That means in those years up until half of them are likely to die at 74 will only receive HALF of what they were forced to "invest". Its simple math simpleton.

Also you don't care about people who die before the age of 60 because they can't collect on their forced investment. Why do you hate people who won't live long enough to collect?

Hudaman
03-18-2012, 10:53 AM
Fact is the average person lives to 74 years old. Most people won't start collecting until their mid 60s. That means in those years up until half of them are likely to die at 74 will only receive HALF of what they were forced to "invest". Its simple math simpleton.

Half of them will die by age 74? How did you come up with that figure? Did you pull it out of your ass, dumbfuck? You keep digging the hole deeper. Your statement, based on these actuarial tables, is demonstrably false. In fact, just a rough estimate by adding together each years death rate, puts the odds of 67 year old male surviving to 74 at better than 80%. Which, if you check your 'Math For Morons' book, is more than half.

Want to make another stupid fucking statement, Citizen? This is fun.

Citizen
03-18-2012, 10:57 AM
This is from wikipedia (not some left wing bullshit site)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

75 years.

BOOM!

Again... boom.

Hudaman
03-18-2012, 11:01 AM
This is from wikipedia (not some left wing bullshit site)


Again... boom.

:lmao2: :lmao2:

The Social Security Administration is a left wing bullshit site.

You are truly a stupid motherfucker. Honest to God. Do you understand that the life expectancy of a new born is NOT THE SAME AS THE LIFE EXPECTANCY OF A 67 YEAR OLD?? Are you so fucking stupid you don't realize this? It is remarkable. My 12 year old has no difficulty with this concept, but even after I explain it to you and show you the numbers, you haven't grasped it. It's remarkable.

Finally, it is rather ironic that you trust wiki more than you trust the 'left wing' Social Security administration. You can't make up that kind of mind numbing stupidity.

Citizen
03-18-2012, 11:06 AM
The Social Security administration makes up their own figures. Life expectancy is 74 years old for the average male. FACT. Deal with it. You social security is a fraud and a ponzi scheme but worse since people are forced to pay into it. Most people will lose big on their "investment" and there nothing you can post to debunk that. Boom.

Hudaman
03-18-2012, 11:10 AM
The Social Security administration makes up their own figures. Life expectancy is 74 years old for the average male. FACT. Deal with it. You social security is a fraud and a ponzi scheme but worse since people are forced to pay into it.

:lmao2: :lmao2:

http://life-span.findthedata.org/q/68/166/What-is-the-life-expectancy-of-a-67-year-old-man

Stupid fucker. Why not just admit you made a mistake? Why dig the hole deeper? You actually believe that the SSA is manipulating the life expectancy numbers? For what reason? To trick stupid fuckers like you?

Hudaman
03-18-2012, 11:13 AM
This is from wikipedia (not some left wing bullshit site)


Again... boom.


Comparison of male and female life expectancy at birth for countries

:hi:

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 11:17 AM
Paul has some legitimate ideas but politics makes it impossible to achieve most of them.

I government is going to bankrupt itself [already has] by trying to do everything for everybody.

Congress thinks its job is to pass legislation that spends money.

merrill
03-18-2012, 11:23 AM
The Social Security administration makes up their own figures. Life expectancy is 74 years old for the average male. FACT. Deal with it. You social security is a fraud and a ponzi scheme but worse since people are forced to pay into it. Most people will lose big on their "investment" and there nothing you can post to debunk that. Boom.

Under the ponzi scheme YOU lose your ass aka all of your money because a ponzi scheme is gambling NOT insurance.

Social Security Insurance comes back to you. Since the inception of Social Security Insurance no one has lost their money. No One!

Tons of people have lost their money under ponzi schemes! Absolutely!

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 11:26 AM
Under the ponzi scheme YOU lose your ass aka all of your money because a ponzi scheme is gambling NOT insurance.

Social Security Insurance comes back to you. Since the inception of Social Security Insurance no one has lost their money. No One!

Tons of people have lost their money under ponzi schemes! Absolutely!

The people who die before retirement age lose their social security money.

dsolo802
03-18-2012, 11:51 AM
People who remain healthy virtually their entire life don't recover their premiums much less get a return on their "investment."

Such is the nature of insurance itself, and still you wouldn't want to be without it.

dsolo802
03-18-2012, 12:10 PM
If this was a bigger forum with actual readers that are not regular trolls I would take the time to articulate my argument but thats just not the case.unfortunately for me, I'm reading what you have to say and your 'answer' to my accurate assessment of Ron Paul's vision for America is one great big cop out.



There is a reason you are called the Rainbows and Unicorn party. you only like the idea of these things like the EPA, USDA, Dept of Ed etcat least we seem to agree that we should not be served up contaminated food and water, we should not be forced to breathe toxic air, we should all have our civil rights protected, we should all have equal opportunity, and our free trade should actually be free.

The answer to bad regulation is better regulation - not no regulation. Thinking that business will regulate itself is the ultimate unicorn rainbow fantasy. Paul's fantasy is a corporatist wet dream.

Dream on Bosco. Paul is nuts.

merrill
03-18-2012, 12:17 PM
The people who die before retirement age lose their social security money.

But never to fraud. Not only that there is the chance that a spouse can assume
Social Security Insurance benefits and even children for school under all the right guidelines.

Living people have lost everything to ponzi schemes.

merrill
03-18-2012, 12:21 PM
Why would anyone support deregulation and zero enforcement when YOUR MONEY
is at risk?

This ain't pretty in fact it looks to be the RINO economic policy written in stone = allowing reckless management of financial institutions then having taxpayers bailout the billionaires. When a party repeats itself what else is there left to think considering the past 3 repub presidents have participated in economic destruction of a magnitude beyond reality.

Why would anyone support deregulation and zero enforcement when YOUR MONEY
is at risk?

Take a look at the long documented history of economic destruction which cost taxpayers trillions of $$$ and a combined effort equaling 20 million lost jobs.

How many more times should voters screw themselves,lose their homes and lose their retirement plans?

These same players are wanting to steal trillions of Social Security Insurance
dollars.

Republicans cost the nation too much money! Let's not get duped again!!!!
==============================================
According to what I was reading:

Republicans were in control when the economy crashed in 1929 which took 24 years to bounce back in the year 1953. It all happened under the umbrella of deregulation and reckless wild speculation with the people's money. Such as lending people money to play Wall Street and making loans such that took place during the Bush/Cheney years.

Where was so much money coming from to fuel this reckless use of money?
From the Federal Reserve and and citizens money they were depositing in the banks.

Why would anyone support deregulation and zero enforcement when YOUR MONEYis at risk?

Back in 1929 like now the bankers and federal reserve did not give a damn for they knew the taxpayers would be forced to bail out this basically criminal activity. All under the republican umbrella.

Americans it is time to demand that the big banks be busted up and the Federal Reserve be taken out of "private" hands!

Why would anyone support deregulation and zero enforcement when YOUR MONEY is at risk?

Republicans cost the nation too much money!

nondual
03-18-2012, 12:21 PM
Thinking that business will regulate itself is the ultimate unicorn rainbow fantasy. Paul's fantasy is a corporatist wet dream.

Dream on Bosco. Paul is nuts.
:thumbsup: :D

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 12:24 PM
But never to fraud. Not only that there is the chance that a spouse can assume
Social Security Insurance benefits and even children for school under all the right guidelines.

Living people have lost everything to ponzi schemes.

Only a fool would put 'everything' into any scheme.

The government should get out of our wallets.

We can take care of ourselves.

merrill
03-18-2012, 12:32 PM
Only a fool would put 'everything' into any scheme.

The government should get out of our wallets.

We can take care of ourselves.

People have lost entire retirement packages to Wall Street. Actually Social Security Insurance should be considered as part of a diverse retirement package. It is certainly protected.

A $1,000 monthly Social Security Insurance supplement can be sweet as apple pie but not as sweet as BOSCO chocolate.

Will you say no to a $1,000 monthly Social Security Insurance supplement? That would be insane.

nondual
03-18-2012, 12:36 PM
Only a fool would put 'everything' into any scheme.

The government should get out of our wallets.

We can take care of ourselves.
Why have tent cities been growing since "trickle down" economics started?

http://post.cloudfront.goodinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/tentcities0309.jpg

http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/tent-city-sacramento-california.jpg

Bruce LeeRoy
03-18-2012, 12:42 PM
unfortunately for me, I'm reading what you have to say and your 'answer' to my accurate assessment of Ron Paul's vision for America is one great big cop out.


at least we seem to agree that we should not be served up contaminated food and water, we should not be forced to breathe toxic air, we should all have our civil rights protected, we should all have equal opportunity, and our free trade should actually be free.

The answer to bad regulation is better regulation - not no regulation. Thinking that business will regulate itself is the ultimate unicorn rainbow fantasy. Paul's fantasy is a corporatist wet dream.

Dream on Bosco. Paul is nuts.

Well, because of your arrogant ignorant self, history is about to repeat itself.

Enjoy the show. Its going to get exciting. :thumbsup:



.
:lmao2: :lmao2:

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 12:48 PM
People have lost entire retirement packages to Wall Street. Actually Social Security Insurance should be considered as part of a diverse retirement package. It is certainly protected..

Depending on the solvency of our government.

The government has already spent the money from the Social Security Fund.

What happens if the U.S. government reneges on SS payments because they are broke?

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 12:49 PM
Why have tent cities been growing since "trickle down" economics started?

http://post.cloudfront.goodinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/tentcities0309.jpg

http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/tent-city-sacramento-california.jpg

Some people have mental problems.

Some people are stupid.

Some people do not want to work.

Some preople prefer to live under a bridge in a tent.

Darmosiel
03-18-2012, 12:49 PM
People have lost entire retirement packages to Wall Street. Actually Social Security Insurance should be considered as part of a diverse retirement package. It is certainly protected.

A $1,000 monthly Social Security Insurance supplement can be sweet as apple pie but not as sweet as BOSCO chocolate.

Will you say no to a $1,000 monthly Social Security Insurance supplement? That would be insane.

Paying into Social Security is more secure than investing in Wall Street that's for certain. They aren't looking for you to get a return nor do they care. It's all extra money for them to gamble with and make themselves richer.

However, I find it interesting that many state employees and the feds themselves don't pay into Social Security they have their own retirement programs. One I am familiar with is PERA under the state of Colorado which acts more like a trust fund. http://www.copera.org/pera/about/overview.htm

The Feds use another program called TSP.

EldonG
03-18-2012, 12:50 PM
Depending on the solvency of our government.

The government has already spent the money from the Social Security Fund.

What happens if the U.S. government reneges on SS payments because they are broke?
Are you that clueless? Did you not know that SS has been bolstered?

EldonG
03-18-2012, 12:52 PM
Some people have mental problems.

Some people are stupid.

Some people do not want to work.

Some preople prefer to live under a bridge in a tent.
...but not half of the people that are there. Quite a few were, and should be, gainfully employed.

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 12:53 PM
Are you that clueless? Did you not know that SS has been bolstered?

I know it has been bullshitted.

$14 trillion debt and $2 trillion deficit.

Where is that SS money for the future?

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 12:54 PM
...but not half of the people that are there. Quite a few were, and should be, gainfully employed.

It would appear pretty hard to end up in a tent under a bridge.

EldonG
03-18-2012, 12:57 PM
I know it has been bullshitted.

$14 trillion debt and $2 trillion deficit.

Where is that SS money for the future?
No, you don't know jack.


As a result of changes to Social Security enacted in 1983, benefits are now expected to be payable in full on a timely basis until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become exhausted.1 At the point where the reserves are used up, continuing taxes are expected to be enough to pay 76 percent of scheduled benefits. Thus, the Congress will need to make changes to the scheduled benefits and revenue sources for the program in the future. The Social Security Board of Trustees project that changes equivalent to an immediate reduction in benefits of about 13 percent, or an immediate increase in the combined payroll tax rate from 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent, or some combination of these changes, would be sufficient to allow full payment of the scheduled benefits for the next 75 years.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 01:07 PM
As a result of changes to Social Security enacted in 1983, benefits are now expected to be payable in full on a timely basis until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become exhausted.1 At the point where the reserves are used up, continuing taxes are expected to be enough to pay 76 percent of scheduled benefits. Thus, the Congress will need to make changes to the scheduled benefits and revenue sources for the program in the future. The Social Security Board of Trustees project that changes equivalent to an immediate reduction in benefits of about 13 percent, or an immediate increase in the combined payroll tax rate from 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent, or some combination of these changes, would be sufficient to allow full payment of the scheduled benefits for the next 75 years.

This does not make your case.

It makes my case

dsolo802
03-18-2012, 01:19 PM
Well, because of your arrogant ignorant self, history is about to repeat itself. Arrogance thy name is, Bosco! Hard to be self-important named after a chocolate syrup, but you manage well.


Enjoy the show. Its going to get exciting.I will be at peace regardless, and will take no joy watching well-meaning people get diverted by snake-oil salesmen like Paul.

EldonG
03-18-2012, 01:23 PM
As a result of changes to Social Security enacted in 1983, benefits are now expected to be payable in full on a timely basis until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become exhausted.1 At the point where the reserves are used up, continuing taxes are expected to be enough to pay 76 percent of scheduled benefits. Thus, the Congress will need to make changes to the scheduled benefits and revenue sources for the program in the future. The Social Security Board of Trustees project that changes equivalent to an immediate reduction in benefits of about 13 percent, or an immediate increase in the combined payroll tax rate from 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent, or some combination of these changes, would be sufficient to allow full payment of the scheduled benefits for the next 75 years.

This does not make your case.

It makes my case
No, it doesn't. Social Security has ALWAYS been a tax. There is now a surplus, meant to take care of our surge in population known as the baby boomers - they had to add a bit to the SS fund to do that, thanks to your Republicans with sticky fingers dipping into the pot...but it's been done. It's still solvent...the most solvent government project we have. Name me another that has funds until 2035.

merrill
03-18-2012, 01:30 PM
I know it has been bullshitted.

$14 trillion debt and $2 trillion deficit.

Where is that SS money for the future?

Here are answers to your questions:
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0111orr.html


Privatizing SS Insurance will cost taxpayers trillions of $$$$$$

Privatizing SS Insurance will not only put the solid program at risk it will also take down the economy one more time which of course is a favorite sport of republicans.

*What impact would the conversion to private accounts have on the national debt?

The government would have to borrow an additional $4 trillion over the next 20 years to make up the money that would be drained out of the system by private accounts.

Social Security privatization would raise the size of the government’s deficit by another $300 billion per year for the next 20 years.


*How would the rest of the U.S. economy be affected if the private accounts replaced the current system?

Put simply, moving to a system of private accounts would not only put retirement income at risk—it would likely put the entire economy at risk.

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 01:32 PM
No, it doesn't. Social Security has ALWAYS been a tax. There is now a surplus, meant to take care of our surge in population known as the baby boomers - they had to add a bit to the SS fund to do that, thanks to your Republicans with sticky fingers dipping into the pot...but it's been done. It's still solvent...the most solvent government project we have. Name me another that has funds until 2035.

How can you have funds until 2035 but you are $14 trillion in debt?

Are you really that hypnotized by Nanny State government?

That would be like you paying me for years and me telling you that I have your money.

But the facts being that I am very deeply in debt.

Bankruptcy debt.

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 01:34 PM
Here are answers to your questions:
http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2010/0111orr.html


Privatizing SS Insurance will cost taxpayers trillions of $$$$$$

Privatizing SS Insurance will not only put the solid program at risk it will also take down the economy one more time which of course is a favorite sport of republicans.

*What impact would the conversion to private accounts have on the national debt?

The government would have to borrow an additional $4 trillion over the next 20 years to make up the money that would be drained out of the system by private accounts.

Social Security privatization would raise the size of the government’s deficit by another $300 billion per year for the next 20 years.


*How would the rest of the U.S. economy be affected if the private accounts replaced the current system?

Put simply, moving to a system of private accounts would not only put retirement income at risk—it would likely put the entire economy at risk.
All bullshit.

If the government took its sticky fingers out of our wallets, it would put more money into the economy.

Employers would have more money to hire other people if they did not have to pay for 'other peoples' retirement.

Get a clue.

Americans can take care of themselves.

The federal government needs to balance its budget.

That is the best thing they could do for us.

merrill
03-18-2012, 01:34 PM
How can you have funds until 2035 but you are $14 trillion in debt?

Are you really that hypnotized by Nanny State government?

That would be like you paying me for years and me telling you that I have your money.

But the facts being that I am very deeply in debt.

Bankruptcy debt.

The trust fund does just contain IOUs, but they’re not worthless. If they are, someone should tell that to the very smart and very rich people, and the central banks of Japan, China, and many other countries that hold a large share of their assets in U.S. government bonds.

When the trust fund was created in 1935, the law stipulated that any excess revenues coming into the Social Security system must be used to purchase federal government bonds. (At the time, the stock market had just lost over 75% of its value and was understood to be unsafe.)

Federal bonds are absolutely safe; the government of the United States has never defaulted on any bond obligation.

Dollars and Sense

merrill
03-18-2012, 01:35 PM
All bullshit.

If the government took its sticky fingers out of our wallets, it would put more money into the economy.

Employers would have more money to hire other people if they did not have to pay for 'other peoples' retirement.

Get a clue.

Americans can take care of themselves.

The federal government needs to balance its budget.

That is the best thing they could do for us.

Says who?

Hudaman
03-18-2012, 01:36 PM
The trust fund does just contain IOUs, but they’re not worthless. If they are, someone should tell that to the very smart and very rich people, and the central banks of Japan, China, and many other countries that hold a large share of their assets in U.S. government bonds.

When the trust fund was created in 1935, the law stipulated that any excess revenues coming into the Social Security system must be used to purchase federal government bonds. (At the time, the stock market had just lost over 75% of its value and was understood to be unsafe.)

Federal bonds are absolutely safe; the government of the United States has never defaulted on any bond obligation.

Dollars and Sense

This is exactly correct. Sadly, idiots like doctordog will claim that the bonds we purchased from ourselves are debts but not assets.

dsolo802
03-18-2012, 01:37 PM
Says who?He doesn't "believe" in facts, Merill. Be advised.

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 01:40 PM
The trust fund does just contain IOUs, but they’re not worthless. If they are, someone should tell that to the very smart and very rich people, and the central banks of Japan, China, and many other countries that hold a large share of their assets in U.S. government bonds.

IOUs?

The SS trust fund is part of the general treasury.

The government spends money like a drunken sailer.

Other countries are holding our debt because we won't balance our budget.

We are prisoner to other countries for the first time in our history.


When the trust fund was created in 1935, the law stipulated that any excess revenues coming into the Social Security system must be used to purchase federal government bonds. (At the time, the stock market had just lost over 75% of its value and was understood to be unsafe.)

Yet the government has spent the money from the trust fund. So any 'excess' would be smoke and mirrors.

Our federal budget is operating on smoke and mirrors.


Federal bonds are absolutely safe; the government of the United States has never defaulted on any bond obligation.


Federal bonds are not worth the paper they are printed on except for our military.

We will go kick ass so we can spend more money on war.

Federal bonds stopped being valuable in about 1990.

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 01:41 PM
Says who?

Says the average American who has to balance his and her budget.

You are not for a balanced budget?

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 01:41 PM
He doesn't "believe" in facts, Merill. Be advised.

I accept facts.

And it is a fact that America is in too much debt.

hd79
03-18-2012, 01:43 PM
All bullshit.

If the government took its sticky fingers out of our wallets, it would put more money into the economy.

Employers would have more money to hire other people if they did not have to pay for 'other peoples' retirement.

Get a clue.

Americans can take care of themselves.

The federal government needs to balance its budget.

That is the best thing they could do for us.
Yes, what you posted here is ALL BS!

The Corps are still raking in record breaking profits, quarter after quarter, allthewhile sitting on their hoarded stockpiles of cash, to the tune of $trillions.

Best wipe your eyes and get out in the sun once in a great while!

Employers have plenty of money to hire people. That they are choosing not to do so, but instead are enabling themselves ever greater bonuses and ever greater riches and wealth, should tell you something.

but of course you choose to remain blind!

EldonG
03-18-2012, 01:46 PM
How can you have funds until 2035 but you are $14 trillion in debt?

Are you really that hypnotized by Nanny State government?

That would be like you paying me for years and me telling you that I have your money.

But the facts being that I am very deeply in debt.

Bankruptcy debt.
It's a separate fund, O witless one.

dsolo802
03-18-2012, 01:48 PM
I accept facts.

And it is a fact that America is in too much debt.Like this right here. He knows the difference between fact, partial fact and opinion - but will freely mix and substitute one for the other to destroy the thread.

There are many macro-economists who say deficit spending to prevent, for example, an honest to God depression is the only remedy, because Government is the only one standing with money to spend.

So, of course, from that perspective we've not spent enough.

It takes a certain amount of honesty to have a genuine exchange, much less debate, here. His intent is not to have any genuine debate. He shits on it.

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 01:52 PM
Yes, what you posted here is ALL BS!

The Corps are still raking in record breaking profits, quarter after quarter, allthewhile sitting on their hoarded stockpiles of cash, to the tune of $trillions.

Best wipe your eyes and get out in the sun once in a great while!

Employers have plenty of money to hire people. That they are choosing not to do so, but instead are enabling themselves ever greater bonuses and ever greater riches and wealth, should tell you something.

but of course you choose to remain blind!

I do not mind if corporations get the benefits of their operations.

I do mind when the government wastes so much money.

Why are we rebuilding other countries with we need so much work done here.

How the hell do you get $14 trillion in debt?

Shrink government to the bone.

And then they will n ot need so much money from us.

Government can be extremely inefficient in many areas.

Managing its check book is one very big area.

Oh. And printing money too.

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 01:53 PM
It's a separate fund, O witless one.

Nope.

It is another piggy bank for the government.

EldonG
03-18-2012, 01:54 PM
Nope.

It is another piggy bank for the government.
Sadly, that's how republicans see it, but that's NOT what it is.

nondual
03-18-2012, 01:56 PM
Some people have mental problems.

Some people are stupid.

Some people do not want to work.

Some preople prefer to live under a bridge in a tent.
Suddenly... right?

:crazzy:

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 01:56 PM
Like this right here. He knows the difference between fact, partial fact and opinion - but will freely mix and substitute one for the other to destroy the thread.

I think my comments have been dead on.


There are many macro-economists who say deficit spending to prevent, for example, an honest to God depression is the only remedy, because Government is the only one standing with money to spend.

So, of course, from that perspective we've not spent enough.

This is insanity. Let the market work. If it crashes into depression, it will pull out.

If the market perverts itself, let it self correct.

Government intervention only makes it worse.


It takes a certain amount of honesty to have a genuine exchange, much less debate, here. His intent is not to have any genuine debate. He shits on it.

I stand by my debating points.

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 01:57 PM
Sadly, that's how republicans see it, but that's NOT what it is.

So you are saying the SS funds are NOT spent?

dsolo802
03-18-2012, 01:57 PM
I think my comments have been dead on.People will see through you.

nondual
03-18-2012, 01:57 PM
I know it has been bullshitted.

$14 trillion debt and $2 trillion deficit.

Where is that SS money for the future?
Blame Wall Street, the people you are aiming to protect.

nondual
03-18-2012, 01:58 PM
It would appear pretty hard to end up in a tent under a bridge.
Since Reagan, it has been getting easier and easier. Coincidence, right loco?

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 01:58 PM
Blame Wall Street, the people you are aiming to protect.

Wall Street aint shit.

The government should not have bailed them out.

That would have fixed Wall Street.

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 01:59 PM
Since Reagan, it has been getting easier and easier. Coincidence, right loco?

Did you miss the Clinton years?

hd79
03-18-2012, 01:59 PM
I do not mind if corporations get the benefits of their operations.

I do mind when the government wastes so much money.

Why are we rebuilding other countries with we need so much work done here.

How the hell do you get $14 trillion in debt?

Shrink government to the bone.

And then they will n ot need so much money from us.

Government can be extremely inefficient in many areas.

Managing its check book is one very big area.

Oh. And printing money too.

do you know which way is up???

You were just complaining, not more than a few scant posts ago, about Employers not having enough money to hire.

And now, when the facts are pointed out to you that they not only have enough, but are hoarding to the tune of $Trillions, you suddenly change your tune and state that because it is private enterprise, its all okay with you???

Well, Bully for you!


the FACT that these private enterprises succeeded in changing the laws and regulations with their high paid lobbyists, so they could enable themselves to become richer at the expense of the middle class and labor, while reducing the amount of revenue THEY have to pay in to government, which is another item you are complaining about, reeks terribly!


And we all know what the smell is!

And it is not okay with all of US, simply because you deem it to be okay with yourself!

nondual
03-18-2012, 02:00 PM
Wall Street aint shit.

The government should not have bailed them out.

That would have fixed Wall Street.
Tell that to Goldman Sachs.

EldonG
03-18-2012, 02:01 PM
So you are saying the SS funds are NOT spent?
No, I'm saying the republican assholes that DID spend it had no right to...just like your employer has no rights to your 401k.

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 02:05 PM
do you know which way is up???

You were just complaining, not more than a few scant posts ago, about Employers not having enough money to hire.

And now, when the facts are pointed out to you that they not only have enough, but are hoarding to the tune of $Trillions, you suddenly change your tune and state that because it is private enterprise, its all okay with you???

Well, Bully for you!

You clearly twisted my comments.

I never said employers do not have enough money to hire. I said they could hire more if the did not have to pay for other peoples's retirement.



the FACT that these private enterprises succeeded in changing the laws and regulations with their high paid lobbyists, so they could enable themselves to become richer at the expense of the middle class and labor, while reducing the amount of revenue THEY have to pay in to government, which is another item you are complaining about, reeks terribly!

It does not reek.

Let the private sector produce what it produces.

We don't need the federal government constantly getting in the way.

We can handle our own retirement and health care.

We can wipe our own asses.

You want the government to wipe your ass too. And charge us to do it.



And we all know what the smell is!

And it is not okay with all of US, simply because you deem it to be okay with yourself!

Big government is NOT good.

It is bad.

$14 trillion in debt threatens our republic.

Can't you see that. Or is your liberal welfare oriented brain too narrow to grasp that reality pole?

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 02:06 PM
No, I'm saying the republican assholes that DID spend it had no right to...just like your employer has no rights to your 401k.

Agreed.

There is a dime's worth of difference in the two parties.

Both are big spenders.

That is why we might need a revolutionary like Ron Paul to tame the federal beast.

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 02:07 PM
Tell that to Goldman Sachs.

I have.

And I will.

They are welfare queens IMO.

Bruce LeeRoy
03-18-2012, 02:08 PM
No, I'm saying the republican assholes that DID spend it had no right to...just like your employer has no rights to your 401k.

:lmao2: :lmao2:

You're saying its the fault of Govt because they act like Govt.

Oh, that's rich. :lmao2:

It was a bi-partisan attack on the money, its money. What are you thinking?

Let's not also forget Obama BIGGEST contributor was Goldman Sach's, so how does that work out in that pea brain of yours?

EldonG
03-18-2012, 02:11 PM
:lmao2: :lmao2:

You're saying its the fault of Govt because they act like Govt.

Oh, that's rich. :lmao2:

It was a bi-partisan attack on the money, its money. What are you thinking?

Let's not also forget Obama BIGGEST contributor was Goldman Sach's, so how does that work out in that pea brain of yours?
I'm saying it's the fault of the government because they act like thieves...and they shouldn't be thieves.

Ron Paul just wants to throw away our safety net.

Incidentally, I knew about Sachs backing Obama since before he made it into office, and it's a primary reason I've NEVER SUPPORTED HIM.

Feel free to make an ass of yourself all you wish on that issue, though.

dsolo802
03-18-2012, 02:12 PM
We can handle our own retirement and health care.Those that have had misfortune of witnessing this show before know that Eman is on record as praising ObamaCare and giving thanks that he now can get health care when before he could not.

There are no such thing as facts for him. The goal is to create confusion and bring all conversation to a dead and miserable stop.

EldonG
03-18-2012, 02:15 PM
Those that have had misfortune of witnessing this show before know that Eman is on record as praising ObamaCare and giving thanks that he now can get health care when before he could not.

There are no such thing as facts for him. The goal is to create confusion and bring all conversation to a dead and miserable stop.
Obviously, he's a failure. :thumbsup:

hd79
03-18-2012, 02:15 PM
You clearly twisted my comments.

I never said employers do not have enough money to hire. I said they could hire more if the did not have to pay for other peoples's retirement.

They could hire more now, right now, today. They have plenty of cash and plenty of profits with which to do so. the fact that they are not, but instead are choosing to lavish themselves with bonuses and hoard ever more, should tell you something.

but again, you choose to leave the blinders in place.





It does not reek.


Oh, it Reeks plenty. And those with the olfactory senses intact have no trouble at all in discerning it.



Let the private sector produce what it produces.

We don't need the federal government constantly getting in the way.

We can handle our own retirement and health care.

We can wipe our own asses.

You want the government to wipe your ass too. And charge us to do it.


Who's stopping the private sector from producing???Especially record breaking profits?

Many would have lost everything by letting the robber barons handle retirement and health care. The private sector has shown and proven that all they care for is profit and GREED. They are not adept at handling matters of our lives, nor our health!
In fact, with the ever rising costs of health care, sometimes at 400% times the amount of inflation, they have proven most incompetent at doing so.




Big government is NOT good.

It is bad.

$14 trillion in debt threatens our republic.

Can't you see that. Or is your liberal welfare oriented brain too narrow to grasp that reality pole?

A government that is able to function properly, with the correct amount of oversight and regulations is much more competent and adept, far moreso than any "private corp" and their over arching and boasting claims of being able to provide oversight and self regulation.

We have seen and experienced the path that leads us to----GREED and more GREED!

Bruce LeeRoy
03-18-2012, 02:15 PM
I'm saying it's the fault of the government because they act like thieves...and they shouldn't be thieves.

Ron Paul just wants to throw away our safety net.

I am sure its just that simple to you, you have shown a penchant for trying to make things simple.

2.5% on SSI is not only a bad investment, it also allows Govt to take this money.

You talk about Ron Paul wants to take away this safety net, yet the money is gone, so the safety net is also gone.

Like I said previously you just like the "IDEAS" of these socialized programs because you look at ANY socialized program even Fed programs like the EPA, or the USDA, they are the biggest offenders of what they so called are trying to prevent against.

So it's you that only like the ideas, not the actual programs. You are supporting these failed program using the Liberal platform of pseudo righteousness.

:hi:

:lmao2: :lmao2:

Kanadesaga
03-18-2012, 02:18 PM
Obviously, he's a failure. :thumbsup:
Do not underestimate eturd. He can spam better than anyone on the planet. His posts don't make sense, they don't have to, he just overwhelms with sheer numbers. Look at his post count, and he has taken almost a year long sabbatical from here.

EldonG
03-18-2012, 02:18 PM
I am sure its just that simple to you, you have shown a penchant for trying to make things simple.

2.5% on SSI is not only a bad investment, it also allows Govt to take this money.

You talk about Ron Paul wants to take away this safety net, yet the money is gone, so the safety net is also gone.

Like I said previously you just like the "IDEAS" of these socialized programs because you look at ANY socialized program even Fed programs like the EPA, or the USDA, they are the biggest offenders of what they so called are trying to prevent against.

So it's you that only like the ideas, not the actual programs. You are supporting these failed program using the Liberal platform of pseudo righteousness.

:hi:

:lmao2: :lmao2:
I've proclaimed many times that many a federal program needs a serious cleaning up. You don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

EldonG
03-18-2012, 02:19 PM
Do not underestimate eturd. He can spam better than anyone on the planet. His posts don't make sense, they don't have to, he just overwhelms with sheer numbers. Look at his post count, and he has taken almost a year long sabbatical from here.
All well and good, but the conversation goes on.

Kanadesaga
03-18-2012, 02:21 PM
All well and good, but the conversation goes on.
not intelligently

hd79
03-18-2012, 02:21 PM
All well and good, but the conversation goes on.
:thumbsup:
This isn't grandpa's internet, anymore.
Let him SPAM away and eat his own SPAM while he's at it.

dsolo802
03-18-2012, 02:21 PM
Obviously, he's a failure. :thumbsup:Wait and see.

EldonG
03-18-2012, 02:23 PM
not intelligiblly
You have a point there. We do waste time on functional illiterates, when there are real points worthy of discussion.

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 02:23 PM
Who's stopping the private sector from producing?

Ther government serv icing $14 trillion in debt is crowding money out of the private sector.

Cut back on government. Private sector could do even more.

Close our bases overseas and bring all of our troops home.

And do not take money out of their checks to pay for retirement and health care.



Many would have lost everything by letting the robber barons handle retirement and health care.

Not the robber barrons, but the American people.



The private sector has shown and proven that all they care for is profit and GREED. They are not adept at handling matters of our lives, nor our health!
In fact, with the ever rising costs of health care, sometimes at 400% times the amount of inflation, they have proven most incompetent at doing so.

Let bad companies die. Do not bail them out.


A government that is able to function properly, with the correct amount of oversight and regulations is much more competent and adept, far moreso than any "private corp" and their over arching and boasting claims of being able to provide oversight and self regulation.

The government can do it oversight job and achive its regulatory responsibilities without going overboard.

$14 trillion is overboard.

Time to cut back.

Or we will end up like Greece.

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 02:24 PM
I've proclaimed many times that many a federal program needs a serious cleaning up. You don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

But much can be abandoned.

Think Department of Commerce.

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 02:26 PM
Do not underestimate eturd.

That is very smart advice.



He can spam better than anyone on the planet.

Eman posts T-bone steaks. Not spam.



His posts don't make sense, they don't have to, he just overwhelms with sheer numbers. Look at his post count, and he has taken almost a year long sabbatical from here.

Damn that Eman is one bad dude.

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 02:27 PM
You have a point there. We do waste time on functional illiterates, when there are real points worthy of discussion.

Well I would not call Desaga a functional illiterate.

dsolo802
03-18-2012, 02:27 PM
You have a point there. We do waste time on functional illiterates, when there are real points worthy of discussion.Yes. If we don't have the real conversations, conversations that would actually lead to alliances across party lines, all of the 99% lose. Eman is a trojan horse.

EldonG
03-18-2012, 02:28 PM
But much can be abandoned.

Think Department of Commerce.
:lmao2:
I have a new policy...simply laughing at you, until you posit a meaningful thought. I think I'm going to live longer...they say laughter does that.

Fat Bastard
03-18-2012, 02:28 PM
And another discussion dumbed-down and bloated with bullshit...

3519

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 02:28 PM
Eman is an American with concern about the direction of his country.

EldonG
03-18-2012, 02:29 PM
Yes. If we don't have the real conversations, conversations that would actually lead to alliances across party lines, all of the 99% lose. Eman is a trojan horse.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Kanadesaga
03-18-2012, 02:29 PM
I told you people. Do not engage eturd. He does this to every thread he enters.

hd79
03-18-2012, 02:29 PM
Ther government serv icing $14 trillion in debt is crowding money out of the private sector.

Cut back on government. Private sector could do even more.

Close our bases overseas and bring all of our troops home.

And do not take money out of their checks to pay for retirement and health care.

FALSE!

As keeps being pointed and repeated ad nauseum, the private corps are making record breaking profits, and sitting on hoarded stockpiles of cash.





Not the robber barrons, but the American people.

And who is going to watch out for the American People, when the robber barons have succeeded in their tomfoolery of convincing everyone to trust the great Wall St private sector??




Let bad companies die. Do not bail them out.

And who determines this?



The government can do it oversight job and achive its regulatory responsibilities without going overboard.

$14 trillion is overboard.

Time to cut back.

Or we will end up like Greece.
That is also demonstrably false, as our gdp to debt ratio was higher in the past, most notably after WWII.

I do agree in part with reducing our debt. It is our methods wherein we disagree. I believe we must increase the amount of revenue in order to pare the debt down and to meet our obligations, with a combination of reducing spending, rather than the one sided path to nowhere focus on spending exclusively, which leads to futility and never reaching nor meetiing the objective.

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 02:29 PM
I think Ron Paul would shake this country up if we would give him the presidency.

Get us back to our dynamic status again.

Not beholdent to other countries to pay our bills.

Not trying to wipe the asses of liberals with weak constitutions.

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 02:30 PM
I told you people. Do not engage eturd. He does this to every thread he enters.

Enlightens?

hd79
03-18-2012, 02:33 PM
I think Ron Paul would shake this country up if we would give him the presidency.

Get us back to our dynamic status again.

Not beholdent to other countries to pay our bills.

Not trying to wipe the asses of liberals with weak constitutions.
Never Happen.

Just as reducing the debt while focusing on one side of the equation exclusively will never lead to results.

The CONS have had their day. The people are waking up from 30 years of "fickle-down" economics.

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 02:34 PM
As keeps being pointed and repeated ad nauseum, the private corps are making record breaking profits, and sitting on hoarded stockpiles of cash.

Did you miss the recession?

And the fear that America was about to go into a depression?

Oil companies are making deserved record profits.


And who is going to watch out for the American People, when the robber barons have succeeded in their tomfoolery of convincing everyone to trust the great Wall St private sector??

But the private sector is much more that Wall Street.

If we the people turn on Wall Street, they will be reformed.

We do not need our government spending our hard earned money to bail out those assholes.


And who determines this?

The people.

If we do not engage a company that is screwing us, they will go out of business.

And other companies will come in to replace them.



I do agree in part with reducing our debt. It is our methods wherein we disagree. I believe we must increase the amount of revenue in order to pare the debt down and to meet our obligations, with a combination of reducing spending, rather than the one sided path to nowhere focus on spending exclusively, which leads to futility and never reaching nor meetiing the objective.

You want to tax and spend? Yep. You're a liberal alright.

Balance the federal budget and watch our economy take off.

dsolo802
03-18-2012, 02:35 PM
Never Happen.

Just as reducing the debt while focusing on one side of the equation exclusively will never lead to results.

The CONS have had their day. The people are waking up from 30 years of "fickle-down" economics.Profits stream up, piss trickles down.

The only social mobility we have any more - is to duck.

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 02:35 PM
Never Happen.

Just as reducing the debt while focusing on one side of the equation exclusively will never lead to results.

The CONS have had their day. The people are waking up from 30 years of "fickle-down" economics.

Not fickle down, but American innovation.

The government [all of them] are simply sucking too much money out of Amreicans.

And pissing it down a stupid rat hole.

With much less money, government can make much less trouble.

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 02:36 PM
Profits stream up, piss trickles down.

The only social mobility we have any more - is to duck.

Profit is good.

Debt is bad.

As simple as that.

hd79
03-18-2012, 02:37 PM
Did you miss the recession?

And the fear that America was about to go into a depression?

Oil companies are making deserved record profits.



But the private sector is much more that Wall Street.

If we the people turn on Wall Street, they will be reformed.

We do not need our government spending our hard earned money to bail out those assholes.



The people.

If we do not engage a company that is screwing us, they will go out of business.

And other companies will come in to replace them.




You want to tax and spend? Yep. You're a liberal alright.

Balance the federal budget and watch our economy take off.
Tax and Spend?

That all you got???

Keep focusing on one side of the equation only, and see where we end up in 10 years???


As for balancing the budget, yes I do agree. It has been proven to work once already, with Clinton. And even under St ronnie Ray-Gun, who raised taxes and kept raising them----though not enough to balance his unmitigated spending!

Hudaman
03-18-2012, 02:39 PM
FALSE!

As keeps being pointed and repeated ad nauseum, the private corps are making record breaking profits, and sitting on hoarded stockpiles of cash.




And who is going to watch out for the American People, when the robber barons have succeeded in their tomfoolery of convincing everyone to trust the great Wall St private sector??



And who determines this?


That is also demonstrably false, as our gdp to debt ratio was higher in the past, most notably after WWII.

I do agree in part with reducing our debt. It is our methods wherein we disagree. I believe we must increase the amount of revenue in order to pare the debt down and to meet our obligations, with a combination of reducing spending, rather than the one sided path to nowhere focus on spending exclusively, which leads to futility and never reaching nor meetiing the objective.

It's actually funny to watch witless people like EMan try to discuss economics. He has memorized some terms, and few talking points, but he doesn't understand them. It makes me chuckle. He hasn't a clue about economics. He just isn't smart enough to shut up.

hd79
03-18-2012, 02:39 PM
Not fickle down, but American innovation.

The government [all of them] are simply sucking too much money out of Amreicans.

And pissing it down a stupid rat hole.

With much less money, government can make much less trouble.
Yes, the people found out all they wish to know about "american innovation"....ie "fickle down" economics.

As stated they are finally waking up from that nightmare.

Darmosiel
03-18-2012, 02:41 PM
:lmao2:
I have a new policy...simply laughing at you, until you posit a meaningful thought. I think I'm going to live longer...they say laughter does that.

Good plan. :D :thumbsup:

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 02:41 PM
Tax and Spend?

That all you got???

Keep focusing on one side of the equation only, and see where we end up in 10 years???


As for balancing the budget, yes I do agree. It has been proven to work once already, with Clinton.

Well I am glad you finally saw the light and agreed with me.




And even under St ronnie Ray-Gun, who raised taxes and kept raising them----though not enough to balance his unmitigated spending!

Ronnie was strictly tax and spend.

He talked a big game but went along with the Beltway Dance.

Clinton actually implemented Ronnie's agenda and it led to prosperity.

Even though every major American corporation was cooking its books.

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 02:42 PM
It's actually funny to watch witless people like EMan try to discuss economics. He has memorized some terms, and few talking points, but he doesn't understand them. It makes me chuckle. He hasn't a clue about economics. He just isn't smart enough to shut up.

You sound like a broken record.

You say the same bullshit to everybody.

That they don't know anything and you know everything.

What kind of delusion asylum do you inhabit in your own diseased mind?

hd79
03-18-2012, 02:43 PM
Well I am glad you finally saw the light and agreed with me.





Ronnie was strictly tax and spend.

He talked a big game but went along with the Beltway Dance.

Clinton actually implemented Ronnie's agenda and it led to prosperity.

Even though every major American corporation was cooking its books.
Agree with you?

Are you truly that dim???

We couldn't be further apart, nitwit!

I believe I shall employ Eldon's tactic at this juncture and simply issue:
:lmao2:

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 02:46 PM
Agree with you?

Are you truly that dim???

We couldn't be further apart, nitwit!

I believe I shall employ Eldon's tactic at this juncture and simply issue:
:lmao2:

Well you agreed that we needed to balance the budget.

hd79
03-18-2012, 02:47 PM
Well you agreed that we needed to balance the budget.
So, then you agree it will never happen by focusing on spending , exclusively?

Good!

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 02:49 PM
So, then you agree it will never happen by focusing on spending , exclusively?

Good!

Nope. No cigar Monica.

No nex taxes. Read my libs.

The government(s) simply spends too much money.

For you to want to tax more to try to get that drunken sailor to stop spending is like telling an alcoholic to drink his way out of his addiction.

hd79
03-18-2012, 02:53 PM
Nope. No cigar Monica.

No nex taxes. Read my libs.

The government(s) simply spends too much money.

For you to want to tax more to try to get that drunken sailor to stop spending is like telling an alcoholic to drink his way out of his addiction.
Your diatribe, as always, is False!

the revenue stream coming in to our coffers is at 76% of the amount it was during 2001.

We simply do not have enough revenue to meet our present, nor future obligations.

the one sided, partisanship narrow focus on spending exclusively is doomed to failure even prior to its starting.

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 03:05 PM
Your diatribe, as always, is False!

the revenue stream coming in to our coffers is at 76% of the amount it was during 2001.

We simply do not have enough revenue to meet our present, nor future obligations.


You are making my case here.


the one sided, partisanship narrow focus on spending exclusively is doomed to failure even prior to its starting.

The best way to stop the sailor from spending is taking away his wallet.

And his car keys too.

You have and put too much faith in goverenment.

Do you worship government? Is government your god?

hd79
03-18-2012, 03:10 PM
You are making my case here.

And You, as always are full of it!

Stating we need to increase our revenue is making your case?

Well, good you finally agree we need to bring in more revenue in order to pay our obligations and debt!



The best way to stop the sailor from spending is taking away his wallet.

And his car keys too.

You have and put too much faith in goverenment.

Do you worship government? Is government your god?

the best way to meet our obligation's and pay down our debt is to increase our ability to pay, while at the same time reducing and cutting where items warrant such.

The exclusive and narrow focus on spending , and that alone and only, will only lead to ultimate failure in reducing our debt!

Are you the water carrier and poster child for the Corps now? It's no secret you and those who carry the buckets for ultimately wish to see the government reduced in its capability for oversight and regulation.

Keep filling those buckets for your masters, so you can lead everyone to the path of the robber barons, all over again!

EldonG
03-18-2012, 03:13 PM
Laugh, HD...laugh. ;)

hd79
03-18-2012, 03:16 PM
Laugh, HD...laugh. ;)
:thumbsup:
At Eman?
he does it make so ridiculously easy.

He is spinning so much now, he doesn't even know the argument he postulated three posts ago!:lmao2:

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 03:21 PM
:thumbsup:
At Eman?
he does it make so ridiculously easy.

He is spinning so much now, he doesn't even know the argument he postulated three posts ago!:lmao2:

Do not listen to that other fellow.

For he is simply jealous of Eman.

Ron Paul gets that too.

Ron could balance the budget in one or two years.

And though I do not agree with him on everything, I do believe (much) of his budget balancing agenda.

hd79
03-18-2012, 03:32 PM
Do not listen to that other fellow.

For he is simply jealous of Eman.

Ron Paul gets that too.

Ron could balance the budget in one or two years.

And though I do not agree with him on everything, I do believe (much) of his budget balancing agenda.
Now, THAT deserves more than one.

:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 03:37 PM
Now, THAT deserves more than one.



Another tax and spend Dem seeks to marginalize a budget cutter.

Your type is what is bringing this country down.

And the Dems and Repubs are the same mirror.

We need somebody who will 'wake America up.'

dsolo802
03-18-2012, 04:04 PM
Getting back to the OP. . .

Ron Paul’s vision for America is not based on the Constitution, at least not the one that actually exists. So on what foundation does it stand?

Largely, I think it is actual blind faith in the free market. Even in small things, no one who values reason will support any kind of blind faith. No one but the insane will roll the dice on Paul’s article of faith when everything is at stake.

Seriously, what makes anyone think that the same man who is willing to corrupt government for a quick buck, will be any less tempted to corrupt free market dynamics for the very same parasitic reward? The common denominator in every scenario is man himself, and man simply cannot be trusted.

In which sector do we find the greatest checks and balances against man’s basic nature?

Let’s start with the purposes to which the two sectors are devoted. The public sector, on paper anyway, is devoted to the common good for each individual. One for all, and all for one.

The private sector is devoted to making maximum profit for the benefit of company shareholders.

And when maximum profits and the common interest are not perfectly aligned – such as is the case, for example, with movement away from fossil fuels yesterday, corporations by force of their own corporate charters are required to choose private interest over public.

What of recall mechanisms? As poorly as our democracy works right now, because of the corrupting influence of money, at least our whoring politicians can be retired in the next election cycle.

By contrast, if a board of directors pursues the public’s interest at the expense of private profit, the shareholders can take legal action based on breach of fiduciary duty. They are always required to act in the best interest of the corporation.

But what of checks and balances? Though Gingrich and Santorum say they will act to undermine our Constitutional checks and balances, as the Constitution stands today it creates three co-equal branches of government. Now this is a setup that deters the aggregation of power in any one branch and in any one set of leaders. That it has largely resulted in gridlock is itself a testament to the power of these checks and balances.

As previously stated, in the private sector, all power lies in the board of directors and CEO, with only weak and largely ineffectual remedial devices available to shareholders, devices not intended and ill-suited to promote the public good.

So what is the impact of Paul and the GOP’s plan to knee cap the Federal government? The GOP’s obstructionist policies over the past three years as a practical matter left the vested interests free to do what they well please. If Paul and the GOP have their way, the Federal government will not have the money to act on behalf of the People - and Gangster, crony and vulture capitalism will run amok.

With zero civil rights protection, will the free market moderate the very worst tendencies of our most base brothers and sisters? No fucking way. If Paul’s racist newsletters show anything they do show that the people we would all agree are bigots are very interested in Paul’s conception of “liberty.”

I don’t know if Paul himself is a racist. But I do know I’m uncomfortable with many things he himself has said. Here is an article that collects some of the nuggets

Did the Libertarian presidential candidate make a series of anti-black comments? (http://loop21.com/top-5-racist-ron-paul-quotes-newsletter)

Did he or didn’t he?

That’s the question the public is asking about Ron Paul after a series of racist newsletters bearing his name have sparked controversy. The newsletters were published in the 1980s and ’90s and include disparaging remarks about African Americans. While Paul now says he didn’t personally write the newsletters, a Huffington Post investigation suggests that in 1996 the Texas congressman didn’t deny making the comments.

Old videos from that year, when Paul launched his first presidential campaign, reportedly show the libertarian plugging the newsletters. The only complaint he shares in the recordings are that his words have been taken out of context.

So what racially insensitive remarks has Paul supposedly made about blacks and civil rights in his newsletters and elsewhere?

Here’s a list:

The Ron Paul Political Report newsletter stated the public should bear arms to protect themselves against carjackings by “urban youth who play whites like pianos.” Note that the terms “black” or “African American” aren’t used in this newsletter sample. However, the racially coded term “urban” and reference to “whites” makes it easy for the reader to ascertain what skin color the youth in question have. The newsletter, written in the first-person, continued on this topic with the following assertion: “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self-defense. For the animals are coming.” Now these animal wouldn’t be blacks, would they?

In another newsletter, Paul described most black men in Washington, D.C., as “semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

Talking Points Memo reported that in December 1990, Paul suggested that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. sexually molested girls and boys, remarking: “And we are supposed to honor this ‘Christian minister’ and lying socialist with a holiday that puts him on par with George Washington?”

In a 1993 Ron Paul Survival Report newsletter, alarm was raised about “The Disappearing White Majority.” The newsletter referenced the growing birth rate of people of color and expressed a pro-segregation stance with this comment: “It is human nature that like attracts likes. But whites are not allowed to express this same human impulse. Except in a de facto sense, there can be no white schools, white clubs, or white neighborhoods. The political system demands white integration, while allowing black segregation.”

In May 2011, Paul told MSNBC that he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended Jim Crow. He questioned the act because it took authority away from property owners. Evidently, Paul values the rights of racist property owners over those of African Americans whose housing, employment, schooling and leisure activities were all dictated by Jim Crow.

Bruce LeeRoy
03-18-2012, 04:56 PM
Yep, you're useless troll dsolo. Thanks for confirming you're feeble mind.

vrqI_4c3jMk

z-FTlZHpBWw

Fe-6EsSqDb4

Citizen
03-18-2012, 05:03 PM
Under the ponzi scheme YOU lose your ass aka all of your money because a ponzi scheme is gambling NOT insurance.

Social Security Insurance comes back to you. Since the inception of Social Security Insurance no one has lost their money. No One!

Tons of people have lost their money under ponzi schemes! Absolutely!

Tons of people have also made more money under it, which is almost impossible for social security. Tons of people die before the age of 60 and never see a dime of it. Its worse than a ponzi scheme because an entire population isn't forced to participate in it. What a racket, "Give me $10 now and I'll give you one penny per month every month after you turn the age of 65." Any normal citizen would be arrested for conducting such a business.

dsolo802
03-18-2012, 05:05 PM
And yet you don't respond to a single thing I wrote, and your videos don't contradict what the author of the article I laid out wrote.


Getting back to the OP. . .

Ron Paul’s vision for America is not based on the Constitution, at least not the one that actually exists. So on what foundation does it stand?

Largely, I think it is actual blind faith in the free market. Even in small things, no one who values reason will support any kind of blind faith. No one but the insane will roll the dice on Paul’s article of faith when everything is at stake.

Seriously, what makes anyone think that the same man who is willing to corrupt government for a quick buck, will be any less tempted to corrupt free market dynamics for the very same parasitic reward? The common denominator in every scenario is man himself, and man simply cannot be trusted.

In which sector do we find the greatest checks and balances against man’s basic nature?

Let’s start with the purposes to which the two sectors are devoted. The public sector, on paper anyway, is devoted to the common good for each individual. One for all, and all for one.

The private sector is devoted to making maximum profit for the benefit of company shareholders.

And when maximum profits and the common interest are not perfectly aligned – such as is the case, for example, with movement away from fossil fuels yesterday, corporations by force of their own corporate charters are required to choose private interest over public.

What of recall mechanisms? As poorly as our democracy works right now, because of the corrupting influence of money, at least our whoring politicians can be retired in the next election cycle.

By contrast, if a board of directors pursues the public’s interest at the expense of private profit, the shareholders can take legal action based on breach of fiduciary duty. They are always required to act in the best interest of the corporation.

But what of checks and balances? Though Gingrich and Santorum say they will act to undermine our Constitutional checks and balances, as the Constitution stands today it creates three co-equal branches of government. Now this is a setup that deters the aggregation of power in any one branch and in any one set of leaders. That it has largely resulted in gridlock is itself a testament to the power of these checks and balances.

As previously stated, in the private sector, all power lies in the board of directors and CEO, with only weak and largely ineffectual remedial devices available to shareholders, devices not intended and ill-suited to promote the public good.

So what is the impact of Paul and the GOP’s plan to knee cap the Federal government? The GOP’s obstructionist policies over the past three years as a practical matter left the vested interests free to do what they well please. If Paul and the GOP have their way, the Federal government will not have the money to act on behalf of the People - and Gangster, crony and vulture capitalism will run amok.

With zero civil rights protection, will the free market moderate the very worst tendencies of our most base brothers and sisters? No fucking way. If Paul’s racist newsletters show anything they do show that the people we would all agree are bigots are very interested in Paul’s conception of “liberty.”

I don’t know if Paul himself is a racist. But I do know I’m uncomfortable with many things he himself has said. Here is an article that collects some of the nuggets

Did the Libertarian presidential candidate make a series of anti-black comments? (http://loop21.com/top-5-racist-ron-paul-quotes-newsletter)

Did he or didn’t he?

That’s the question the public is asking about Ron Paul after a series of racist newsletters bearing his name have sparked controversy. The newsletters were published in the 1980s and ’90s and include disparaging remarks about African Americans. While Paul now says he didn’t personally write the newsletters, a Huffington Post investigation suggests that in 1996 the Texas congressman didn’t deny making the comments.

Old videos from that year, when Paul launched his first presidential campaign, reportedly show the libertarian plugging the newsletters. The only complaint he shares in the recordings are that his words have been taken out of context.

So what racially insensitive remarks has Paul supposedly made about blacks and civil rights in his newsletters and elsewhere?

Here’s a list:

The Ron Paul Political Report newsletter stated the public should bear arms to protect themselves against carjackings by “urban youth who play whites like pianos.” Note that the terms “black” or “African American” aren’t used in this newsletter sample. However, the racially coded term “urban” and reference to “whites” makes it easy for the reader to ascertain what skin color the youth in question have. The newsletter, written in the first-person, continued on this topic with the following assertion: “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self-defense. For the animals are coming.” Now these animal wouldn’t be blacks, would they?

In another newsletter, Paul described most black men in Washington, D.C., as “semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

Talking Points Memo reported that in December 1990, Paul suggested that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. sexually molested girls and boys, remarking: “And we are supposed to honor this ‘Christian minister’ and lying socialist with a holiday that puts him on par with George Washington?”

In a 1993 Ron Paul Survival Report newsletter, alarm was raised about “The Disappearing White Majority.” The newsletter referenced the growing birth rate of people of color and expressed a pro-segregation stance with this comment: “It is human nature that like attracts likes. But whites are not allowed to express this same human impulse. Except in a de facto sense, there can be no white schools, white clubs, or white neighborhoods. The political system demands white integration, while allowing black segregation.”

In May 2011, Paul told MSNBC that he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended Jim Crow. He questioned the act because it took authority away from property owners. Evidently, Paul values the rights of racist property owners over those of African Americans whose housing, employment, schooling and leisure activities were all dictated by Jim Crow.

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 05:06 PM
Tons of people have also made more money under it, which is almost impossible for social security. Tons of people die before the age of 60 and never see a dime of it. Its worse than a ponzi scheme because an entire population isn't forced to participate in it. What a racket, "Give me $10 now and I'll give you one penny per month every month after you turn the age of 65." Any normal citizen would be arrested for conducting such a business.

I agree with you, Citizen.

Get the government out of our wallets.

An employer should not have to participate in this Ponzi scheme.

Employees either.

merrill
03-18-2012, 05:09 PM
Tons of people have also made more money under it, which is almost impossible for social security. Tons of people die before the age of 60 and never see a dime of it. Its worse than a ponzi scheme because an entire population isn't forced to participate in it. What a racket, "Give me $10 now and I'll give you one penny per month every month after you turn the age of 65." Any normal citizen would be arrested for conducting such a business.

Face it unless a person can afford to lose money Wall Street is not the place to be. Social Security Insurance is not designed towards an Aspen lifestyle.

By Doug Orr

The opponents of Social Security will stop at nothing in their long crusade to destroy the most efficient retirement system in the world. Opponents have taken two tracks to attack Social Security.

The first is to claim the system as it is will fail, and the second is to claim that privatization is a better way to provide for retirement security. The first claim was the favorite from 1935 to about 2001.Then the privatization claim became the vogue. Now the first is back on the table.

With corporations routinely defaulting on their pension promises, more and more workers must rely on their individual wealth to make up the difference. The stock market collapse at the turn of the millennium wiped out much of the financial wealth of middle class Americans, and the collapse of the housing bubble has wiped out much of their remaining wealth.

Making any cuts to Social Security now, either by raising the retirement age or cutting benefits, would have a huge impact on their remaining retirement income and are not necessary to “save the system.”

Citizen
03-18-2012, 05:12 PM
Face it you automatically lose money with social security. You don't automatically lose money in wall street.

Hudaman
03-18-2012, 05:35 PM
Tons of people have also made more money under it, which is almost impossible for social security. Tons of people die before the age of 60 and never see a dime of it. Its worse than a ponzi scheme because an entire population isn't forced to participate in it. What a racket, "Give me $10 now and I'll give you one penny per month every month after you turn the age of 65." Any normal citizen would be arrested for conducting such a business.

Are you familiar with survivor benefits? You just keep upping the ante on stupid.

Bruce LeeRoy
03-18-2012, 06:27 PM
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

DtIfc0QqKWk

Another 5000 PLUS room of supporters, Ron Paul's support base is growing by leaps and BOUNDS !!!

bnaJXUclUFA

iGxKAYArMFc

Bruce LeeRoy
03-18-2012, 06:42 PM
Ron Paul Is the Only Candidate I Trust - Nassem Taleb, Author of "Black Swan"

Hl0SgEBzBHY

dsolo802
03-18-2012, 07:06 PM
Getting back to the OP. . .

Ron Paul’s vision for America is not based on the Constitution, at least not the one that actually exists. So on what foundation does it stand?

Largely, I think it is actual blind faith in the free market. Even in small things, no one who values reason will support any kind of blind faith. No one but the insane will roll the dice on Paul’s article of faith when everything is at stake.

Seriously, what makes anyone think that the same man who is willing to corrupt government for a quick buck, will be any less tempted to corrupt free market dynamics for the very same parasitic reward? The common denominator in every scenario is man himself, and man simply cannot be trusted.

In which sector do we find the greatest checks and balances against man’s basic nature?

Let’s start with the purposes to which the two sectors are devoted. The public sector, on paper anyway, is devoted to the common good for each individual. One for all, and all for one.

The private sector is devoted to making maximum profit for the benefit of company shareholders.

And when maximum profits and the common interest are not perfectly aligned – such as is the case, for example, with movement away from fossil fuels yesterday, corporations by force of their own corporate charters are required to choose private interest over public.

What of recall mechanisms? As poorly as our democracy works right now, because of the corrupting influence of money, at least our whoring politicians can be retired in the next election cycle.

By contrast, if a board of directors pursues the public’s interest at the expense of private profit, the shareholders can take legal action based on breach of fiduciary duty. They are always required to act in the best interest of the corporation.

But what of checks and balances? Though Gingrich and Santorum say they will act to undermine our Constitutional checks and balances, as the Constitution stands today it creates three co-equal branches of government. Now this is a setup that deters the aggregation of power in any one branch and in any one set of leaders. That it has largely resulted in gridlock is itself a testament to the power of these checks and balances.

As previously stated, in the private sector, all power lies in the board of directors and CEO, with only weak and largely ineffectual remedial devices available to shareholders, devices not intended and ill-suited to promote the public good.

So what is the impact of Paul and the GOP’s plan to knee cap the Federal government? The GOP’s obstructionist policies over the past three years as a practical matter left the vested interests free to do what they well please. If Paul and the GOP have their way, the Federal government will not have the money to act on behalf of the People - and Gangster, crony and vulture capitalism will run amok.

With zero civil rights protection, will the free market moderate the very worst tendencies of our most base brothers and sisters? No fucking way. If Paul’s racist newsletters show anything they do show that the people we would all agree are bigots are very interested in Paul’s conception of “liberty.”

I don’t know if Paul himself is a racist. But I do know I’m uncomfortable with many things he himself has said. Here is an article that collects some of the nuggets

Did the Libertarian presidential candidate make a series of anti-black comments? (http://loop21.com/top-5-racist-ron-paul-quotes-newsletter)

Did he or didn’t he?

That’s the question the public is asking about Ron Paul after a series of racist newsletters bearing his name have sparked controversy. The newsletters were published in the 1980s and ’90s and include disparaging remarks about African Americans. While Paul now says he didn’t personally write the newsletters, a Huffington Post investigation suggests that in 1996 the Texas congressman didn’t deny making the comments.

Old videos from that year, when Paul launched his first presidential campaign, reportedly show the libertarian plugging the newsletters. The only complaint he shares in the recordings are that his words have been taken out of context.

So what racially insensitive remarks has Paul supposedly made about blacks and civil rights in his newsletters and elsewhere?

Here’s a list:

The Ron Paul Political Report newsletter stated the public should bear arms to protect themselves against carjackings by “urban youth who play whites like pianos.” Note that the terms “black” or “African American” aren’t used in this newsletter sample. However, the racially coded term “urban” and reference to “whites” makes it easy for the reader to ascertain what skin color the youth in question have. The newsletter, written in the first-person, continued on this topic with the following assertion: “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self-defense. For the animals are coming.” Now these animal wouldn’t be blacks, would they?

In another newsletter, Paul described most black men in Washington, D.C., as “semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

Talking Points Memo reported that in December 1990, Paul suggested that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. sexually molested girls and boys, remarking: “And we are supposed to honor this ‘Christian minister’ and lying socialist with a holiday that puts him on par with George Washington?”

In a 1993 Ron Paul Survival Report newsletter, alarm was raised about “The Disappearing White Majority.” The newsletter referenced the growing birth rate of people of color and expressed a pro-segregation stance with this comment: “It is human nature that like attracts likes. But whites are not allowed to express this same human impulse. Except in a de facto sense, there can be no white schools, white clubs, or white neighborhoods. The political system demands white integration, while allowing black segregation.”

In May 2011, Paul told MSNBC that he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended Jim Crow. He questioned the act because it took authority away from property owners. Evidently, Paul values the rights of racist property owners over those of African Americans whose housing, employment, schooling and leisure activities were all dictated by Jim Crow.

Bruce LeeRoy
03-18-2012, 07:10 PM
Did the Libertarian presidential candidate make a series of anti-black comments? (http://loop21.com/top-5-racist-ron-paul-quotes-newsletter)

Did he or didn’t he?

That’s the question the public is asking about Ron Paul after a series of racist newsletters bearing his name have sparked controversy. The newsletters were published in the 1980s and ’90s and include disparaging remarks about African Americans. While Paul now says he didn’t personally write the newsletters, a Huffington Post investigation suggests that in 1996 the Texas congressman didn’t deny making the comments.

Old videos from that year, when Paul launched his first presidential campaign, reportedly show the libertarian plugging the newsletters. The only complaint he shares in the recordings are that his words have been taken out of context.

So what racially insensitive remarks has Paul supposedly made about blacks and civil rights in his newsletters and elsewhere?

Here’s a list:

The Ron Paul Political Report newsletter stated the public should bear arms to protect themselves against carjackings by “urban youth who play whites like pianos.” Note that the terms “black” or “African American” aren’t used in this newsletter sample. However, the racially coded term “urban” and reference to “whites” makes it easy for the reader to ascertain what skin color the youth in question have. The newsletter, written in the first-person, continued on this topic with the following assertion: “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self-defense. For the animals are coming.” Now these animal wouldn’t be blacks, would they?

In another newsletter, Paul described most black men in Washington, D.C., as “semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

Talking Points Memo reported that in December 1990, Paul suggested that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. sexually molested girls and boys, remarking: “And we are supposed to honor this ‘Christian minister’ and lying socialist with a holiday that puts him on par with George Washington?”

In a 1993 Ron Paul Survival Report newsletter, alarm was raised about “The Disappearing White Majority.” The newsletter referenced the growing birth rate of people of color and expressed a pro-segregation stance with this comment: “It is human nature that like attracts likes. But whites are not allowed to express this same human impulse. Except in a de facto sense, there can be no white schools, white clubs, or white neighborhoods. The political system demands white integration, while allowing black segregation.”

In May 2011, Paul told MSNBC that he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended Jim Crow. He questioned the act because it took authority away from property owners. Evidently, Paul values the rights of racist property owners over those of African Americans whose housing, employment, schooling and leisure activities were all dictated by Jim Crow.


The "racist" letters where written by James B Powell, but of course you don't care youre pushing a socialist agenda, you keep re-posting this and I will keep re-posting my reply.
:hi:
z-FTlZHpBWw

Fe-6EsSqDb4

Citizen
03-18-2012, 07:33 PM
Are you familiar with survivor benefits? You just keep upping the ante on stupid.

Why do you hate people who die between the ages of 20 and 60? Why are you making war on them?

hd79
03-18-2012, 07:39 PM
Another tax and spend Dem seeks to marginalize a budget cutter.

Your type is what is bringing this country down.

And the Dems and Repubs are the same mirror.

We need somebody who will 'wake America up.'
another LIAR from the water carrier for the Corps.

or perhaps you would care to show where I proposed tax and spend??

Nevermind, FAIL BOY!

don't bother as you will not be able to do so.

the FACT that we need increased revenue to meet our obligations will not go away, no matter how many buckets you carry, FAIL BOY!

Citizen
03-18-2012, 07:41 PM
We need to increase... we need to increase again... we need to increase again... but we have no money... we need to increase again... and again and again and again and again. There is no end game for liberals just more spend spend spend.

hd79
03-18-2012, 07:41 PM
Face it you automatically lose money with social security. You don't automatically lose money in wall street.
Many who planned to retire in 2008 not only lost, many lost big! so much so, that now many of them have to continue to work, rather than retire at all.

Simply because you water carriers trust the almighty Corps and the robber barons, doesn't mean we all need do so.

hd79
03-18-2012, 07:43 PM
We need to increase... we need to increase again... we need to increase again... but we have no money... we need to increase again... and again and again and again and again. There is no end game for liberals just more spend spend spend.
How many times was the debt ceiling raised under Booshed??

And how many does it make for Obama's Administration now???

Stick your TP where it does the most good!

Citizen
03-18-2012, 07:45 PM
Many who planned to retire in 2008 not only lost, many lost big! so much so, that now many of them have to continue to work, rather than retire at all.

Simply because you water carriers trust the almighty Corps and the robber barons, doesn't mean we all need do so.


Still more than the average social security payout. What about 1945 through 2007? Still better than any social security ponzi scheme. How many million of Americans died between the ages of 20 and 65 that never saw a dime out of their investments since the dawn of social security? They got all their money and yet still fuck it up for people who are lucky enough to live past 70.

Citizen
03-18-2012, 07:47 PM
How many times was the debt ceiling raised under Booshed??

And how many does it make for Obama's Administration now???

Stick your TP where it does the most good!

Then by what you said and what you're saying about Bush/Obama you must love Bush and hate Obama. Hypocrite.

Hudaman
03-18-2012, 07:49 PM
Why do you hate people who die between the ages of 20 and 60? Why are you making war on them?

You've attempted to change the subject again, but of course because you are a dimwit, you lose this one too. Survivor benefits often vastly exceed the contribution, or even the benefit had the person reached retirement age. Let me know when you get tired of me carving you up like a turkey.

Citizen
03-18-2012, 07:51 PM
How can they get their money back if they're dead?

Hudaman
03-18-2012, 07:53 PM
How can they get their money back if they're dead?

:lmao2: :lmao2:

You really ARE this stupid, aren't you. I've given you the hint twice. Survivor benefits. I don't get my life insurance money back if I die either, doofus.

Environment Man
03-18-2012, 07:54 PM
How can they get their money back if they're dead?

HUD has probably a lot of food stamps somewhere.

Fat Bastard
03-18-2012, 07:54 PM
:lmao2: :lmao2:

You really ARE this stupid, aren't you. I've given you the hint twice. Survivor benefits. I don't get my life insurance money back if I die either, doofus.

You are merciless. :lmao2: :thumbsup:

Bruce LeeRoy
03-18-2012, 07:57 PM
:lmao2: :lmao2:

You really ARE this stupid, aren't you. I've given you the hint twice. Survivor benefits. I don't get my life insurance money back if I die either, doofus.

Life insurance in voluntary dipshit, SSI isnt.

You don't see the difference?

Typical wannabe 1%'er... :lmao2:

Citizen
03-18-2012, 07:57 PM
:lmao2: :lmao2:

You really ARE this stupid, aren't you. I've given you the hint twice. Survivor benefits. I don't get my life insurance money back if I die either, doofus.

Social security isn't supposed to be life insurance dummy.

Citizen
03-18-2012, 07:58 PM
Next libs will be saying social security is magic fairy dust as well.

hd79
03-18-2012, 08:04 PM
Then by what you said and what you're saying about Bush/Obama you must love Bush and hate Obama. Hypocrite.
Started early today, eh?

The Hypocrites are you who are only complaining now that a D is in the WH, but simply remained silent or cheered when Booshed was spending us into debt while increasing the debt ceiling again and again.

hd79
03-18-2012, 08:05 PM
Still more than the average social security payout. What about 1945 through 2007? Still better than any social security ponzi scheme. How many million of Americans died between the ages of 20 and 65 that never saw a dime out of their investments since the dawn of social security? They got all their money and yet still fuck it up for people who are lucky enough to live past 70.
Tell that to those who were planning to retire in 08-09 and lost everything. As stated prior, many are still forced to work, rather than retire.

dsolo802
03-18-2012, 08:08 PM
[B][SIZE="4"]The "racist" letters where written by James B Powell, but of course you don't care youre pushing a socialist agenda, you keep re-posting this and I will keep re-posting my reply. Before we get to the point I was making about those racist newsletters, what about all of this:

Getting back to the OP. . .

Ron Paul’s vision for America is not based on the Constitution, at least not the one that actually exists. So on what foundation does it stand?

Largely, I think it is actual blind faith in the free market. Even in small things, no one who values reason will support any kind of blind faith. No one but the insane will roll the dice on Paul’s article of faith when everything is at stake.

Seriously, what makes anyone think that the same man who is willing to corrupt government for a quick buck, will be any less tempted to corrupt free market dynamics for the very same parasitic reward? The common denominator in every scenario is man himself, and man simply cannot be trusted.

In which sector do we find the greatest checks and balances against man’s basic nature?

Let’s start with the purposes to which the two sectors are devoted. The public sector, on paper anyway, is devoted to the common good for each individual. One for all, and all for one.

The private sector is devoted to making maximum profit for the benefit of company shareholders.

And when maximum profits and the common interest are not perfectly aligned – such as is the case, for example, with movement away from fossil fuels yesterday, corporations by force of their own corporate charters are required to choose private interest over public.

What of recall mechanisms? As poorly as our democracy works right now, because of the corrupting influence of money, at least our whoring politicians can be retired in the next election cycle.

By contrast, if a board of directors pursues the public’s interest at the expense of private profit, the shareholders can take legal action based on breach of fiduciary duty. They are always required to act in the best interest of the corporation.

But what of checks and balances? Though Gingrich and Santorum say they will act to undermine our Constitutional checks and balances, as the Constitution stands today it creates three co-equal branches of government. Now this is a setup that deters the aggregation of power in any one branch and in any one set of leaders. That it has largely resulted in gridlock is itself a testament to the power of these checks and balances.

As previously stated, in the private sector, all power lies in the board of directors and CEO, with only weak and largely ineffectual remedial devices available to shareholders, devices not intended and ill-suited to promote the public good.

So what is the impact of Paul and the GOP’s plan to knee cap the Federal government? The GOP’s obstructionist policies over the past three years as a practical matter left the vested interests free to do what they well please. If Paul and the GOP have their way, the Federal government will not have the money to act on behalf of the People - and Gangster, crony and vulture capitalism will run amok.

With zero civil rights protection, will the free market moderate the very worst tendencies of our most base brothers and sisters? No fucking way. If Paul’s racist newsletters show anything they do show that the people we would all agree are bigots are very interested in Paul’s conception of “liberty.”

Hudaman
03-18-2012, 08:26 PM
Social security isn't supposed to be life insurance dummy.

:lmao2: :lmao2:

Of course it is you stupid fuck.

Bruce LeeRoy
03-18-2012, 09:07 PM
Before we get to the point I was making about those racist newsletters, what about all of this:

Getting back to the OP. . .

Ron Paul’s vision for America is not based on the Constitution, at least not the one that actually exists. So on what foundation does it stand?

Largely, I think it is actual blind faith in the free market. Even in small things, no one who values reason will support any kind of blind faith. No one but the insane will roll the dice on Paul’s article of faith when everything is at stake.

Seriously, what makes anyone think that the same man who is willing to corrupt government for a quick buck, will be any less tempted to corrupt free market dynamics for the very same parasitic reward? The common denominator in every scenario is man himself, and man simply cannot be trusted.

In which sector do we find the greatest checks and balances against man’s basic nature?

Let’s start with the purposes to which the two sectors are devoted. The public sector, on paper anyway, is devoted to the common good for each individual. One for all, and all for one.

The private sector is devoted to making maximum profit for the benefit of company shareholders.

And when maximum profits and the common interest are not perfectly aligned – such as is the case, for example, with movement away from fossil fuels yesterday, corporations by force of their own corporate charters are required to choose private interest over public.

What of recall mechanisms? As poorly as our democracy works right now, because of the corrupting influence of money, at least our whoring politicians can be retired in the next election cycle.

By contrast, if a board of directors pursues the public’s interest at the expense of private profit, the shareholders can take legal action based on breach of fiduciary duty. They are always required to act in the best interest of the corporation.

But what of checks and balances? Though Gingrich and Santorum say they will act to undermine our Constitutional checks and balances, as the Constitution stands today it creates three co-equal branches of government. Now this is a setup that deters the aggregation of power in any one branch and in any one set of leaders. That it has largely resulted in gridlock is itself a testament to the power of these checks and balances.

As previously stated, in the private sector, all power lies in the board of directors and CEO, with only weak and largely ineffectual remedial devices available to shareholders, devices not intended and ill-suited to promote the public good.

So what is the impact of Paul and the GOP’s plan to knee cap the Federal government? The GOP’s obstructionist policies over the past three years as a practical matter left the vested interests free to do what they well please. If Paul and the GOP have their way, the Federal government will not have the money to act on behalf of the People - and Gangster, crony and vulture capitalism will run amok.

With zero civil rights protection, will the free market moderate the very worst tendencies of our most base brothers and sisters? No fucking way. If Paul’s racist newsletters show anything they do show that the people we would all agree are bigots are very interested in Paul’s conception of “liberty.”

I understand your questions here, and while they may even have SOME merit, i completely reject this fear based ASSUMPTION youre coming to.

Its just that simple, we did just fine prior to 1980ish?

youre just playing the fear card, always with this "fear" bullshit. You have this undying faith in Govt, yet right now Govt is the problem. This isnt fear, its real actions taking place right now and have been since 2001

Either way, you can never have a fool proof system, and what we HAD is the closest humanity has ever come to in ALL of history.

I also said in other threads, I hope youre suffer the most from this blind unfounded faith, I see youre mindset as a real decease of the mind. Appropriately you are going to solve your own problem by your own actions.

See how that works?

Probably not.

dsolo802
03-18-2012, 09:18 PM
I understand your questions here, and while they may even have SOME merit, i completely reject this fear based ASSUMPTION youre coming to.If concern is based on reality, which my concern is, it is not fear based. The GOP says government can't be trusted. I'm saying the private sector can't be trusted for exactly the same reason. So you tell me, Bosco, are both concerns fear based? or are they both based on reality?


Its just that simple, we did just fine prior to 1980ish?I'm not the one proposing to change the way our government is structured. I'm not looking to radically defund the Federal Government. So if we did just fine until 1980, why is Paul proposing to radically change things?


youre just playing the fear card, always with this "fear" bullshit. You have this undying faith in Govt, yet right now Govt is the problem. This isnt fear, its real actions taking place right now and have been since 2001Well, that is a VERY dishonest characterization of my argument. I'm saying MAN can't be trusted. Right now man in both sectors is the problem. And so the question I posed is based on checks and balances and our ability to control the sectors. Which can be trusted most? I've laid it out there very nicely for you. If you would like to respond to my logic, I promise to read and respond to what you have to say.


Either way, you can never have a fool proof system, and what we HAD is the closest humanity has ever come to in ALL of history.And what we had was never based on the fantasy that the free market would solve all ills. Republicans have partaken of that Kool Aid before. So far they have not managed to completely knee cap the Federal Government the way that Paul says the Constitution commands that we do.

Bruce LeeRoy
03-18-2012, 09:29 PM
If concern is based on reality, which my concern is, it is not fear based. The GOP says government can't be trusted. I'm saying the private sector can't be trusted for exactly the same reason. So you tell me, Bosco, are both concerns fear based? or are they both based on reality?

Yes, completely fear based, clearly in all your questions posed they are also followed by worse case scenarios.


I'm not the one proposing to change the way our government is structured. I'm not looking to radically defund the Federal Government. So if we did just fine until 1980, why is Paul proposing to radically change things?


WTF? Yes you are, you are wanting the US to go completely off our of constitutional system of Govt.


Well, that is a VERY dishonest characterization of my argument. I'm saying MAN can't be trusted. Right now man in both sectors is the problem. And so the question I posed is based on checks and balances and our ability to control the sectors. Which can be trusted most? I've laid it out there very nicely for you. If you would like to respond to my logic, I promise to read and respond to what you have to say.


The whole problem stems from the ability of money creation and the socializing of the debt. Or do you seriously think there is multiple quadrillion dollars in circulation?


And what we had was never based on the fantasy that the free market would solve all ills. Republicans have partaken of that Kool Aid before. So far they have not managed to completely knee cap the Federal Government the way that Paul says the Constitution commands that we do.
[/QUOTE]

The problem will ALWAYS be a problem as long as the money creation process is so easy, and the country is allowed to print at will.

Its simple, no easy access to money, no money to these crony capitalist to grab.

I honestly think you do not understand how the FED works, you seem to think this is a pretty complicated issue.

It's not, Rome and many other Nations that allowed fiat currency and socialism take hold have all failed.

This is really basic history.

dsolo802
03-18-2012, 09:43 PM
Yes, completely fear based, clearly in all your questions posed they are also followed by worse case scenarios. They are both fear based or neither are. You are talking about the corrupting influence of man in both cases.


WTF? Yes you are, you are wanting the US to go completely off our of constitutional system of Govt. Sorry buddy, it is Paul that wants to take our Constitutionally bound structure of government off the tracks.


The whole problem stems from the ability of money creation and the socializing of the debt. Or do you seriously think there is multiple quadrillion dollars in circulation?I'm talking about corruption in the private and public sectors. You are assuming the thing you would prove: No sir, it is not wrong to provide for the common good, consistent with enumerated powers. As the US Supreme Court has held innumerable times, doing so is the Constitutionally approved role of the Federal Government. Of course if you think your opinion supersedes that of the Supremes your problem is one I can't touch here.


The problem will ALWAYS be a problem as long as the money creation process is so easy, and the country is allowed to print at will. You are talking about fiscal policy, and I'm talking about the Constitutionally grounded structure of our government.

I'm condemning Paul for re-writing the Constitution. Now he may want to do that because it will make it easier for him to achieve what he thinks fiscal policy should be, but he is the one proposing radical change. Not me.


Its simple, no easy access to money, no money to these crony capitalist to grab. sure and if you shoot yourself in the head no body else will be able to kill you. You'll be dead.


I honestly think you do not understand how the FED works, you seem to think this is a pretty complicated issue.

It's not, Rome and many other Nations that allowed fiat currency and socialism take hold have all failed.

This is really basic history.If you want to discuss fiscal policy, that would be fine and dandy. But in this thread I'm not talking about it at all. Paul may be right about fiscal policy. I don't think so. But he might be right. what I'm talking about here is Paul wanting to remake the US in a radical way based on a Constitution that doesn't exist, and never did.

nondual
03-18-2012, 09:52 PM
The whole problem stems from the ability of money creation and the socializing of the debt.

The problem will ALWAYS be a problem as long as the money creation process is so easy, and the country is allowed to print at will.

Its simple, no easy access to money, no money to these crony capitalist to grab.

I honestly think you do not understand how the FED works, you seem to think this is a pretty complicated issue.

It's not, Rome and many other Nations that allowed fiat currency and socialism take hold have all failed.

This is really basic history.
:crazzy:

The people running this government (Goldman Sachs) are the same people Ron Paul wants to give free rein running our economy, and hence, our country.

dsolo802
03-18-2012, 09:55 PM
:crazzy:

The people running this government (Goldman Sachs) are the same people Ron Paul wants to give free rein running our economy, and hence, our country.He wants to get into the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve. Not my issue. And not what I'm talking about. That is why we are talking passed each other.

I think it warrants discussion - in its own thread. Here it is spamming up the works.

Darmosiel
03-18-2012, 10:44 PM
He wants to get into the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve. Not my issue. And not what I'm talking about. That is why we are talking passed each other.

I think it warrants discussion - in its own thread. Here it is spamming up the works.

There's been a lot of discussion regarding the Fed. Having a government owned currency is never going to happen until we get money out of buying and sponsoring our politicians AND ending corporations 'person' status with individual rights protecting them.

Then we can do something about the Fed.

Vilifier of Zombies
03-19-2012, 03:19 AM
They are both fear based or neither are. You are talking about the corrupting influence of man in both cases.......



What's really gonna be great about Bozo is when Paul loses for the "three strikes and yer out!" third time...I sure hope he's still posting here when that happens.

He's gonna go through all sorts of depression phases, starting with denial. When he's knee deep in the denial phase is when he's gonna be at his weakest, we're all but assured a massive artery busting meltdown...as much as he's spammed this forum with "All Hail Ron Paul" threads and posts, it'll be glorious, it'll be recompense incarnate.

Darmosiel
03-19-2012, 05:06 PM
What's really gonna be great about Bozo is when Paul loses for the "three strikes and yer out!" third time...I sure hope he's still posting here when that happens.

He's gonna go through all sorts of depression phases, starting with denial. When he's knee deep in the denial phase is when he's gonna be at his weakest, we're all but assured a massive artery busting meltdown...as much as he's spammed this forum with "All Hail Ron Paul" threads and posts, it'll be glorious, it'll be recompense incarnate.

Boz will be in denial right up to the election and for several months after screaming how they were robbed and want a recount. :lmao2:

Hudaman
03-19-2012, 05:32 PM
Ron Paul finished behind Fred Karger in the Puerto Rico vote.

:lmao2: :lmao2:

tutonic
03-19-2012, 05:33 PM
Ron Paul seems to revel in being the candidate for goofy outsiders. I don't think his relevance exceeds that demographic, which is not that large or powerful..

Bruce LeeRoy
03-19-2012, 06:02 PM
Boz will be in denial right up to the election and for several months after screaming how they were robbed and want a recount. :lmao2:

The sides are being drawn as you post......


we shall see who does what when, and where. :thumbsup:

its really kind of pathetic you don't have a candidate of your own to support, and can only sling shit in a direction you THINK you do not like.

But youre wishy washy enough to probably support obozo when most of the things you say you are against had obozo behind it, youre not better then any blind GOP voter. lol

Its idiots parade for sure.

kres24GT
03-19-2012, 06:08 PM
Let people opt out of these programs if they so choose. Problem solved.

tutonic
03-19-2012, 06:34 PM
Let people opt out of these programs if they so choose. Problem solved.

I dig practical thinking.

dsolo802
03-19-2012, 06:42 PM
Ron Paul finished behind Fred Karger in the Puerto Rico vote.

:lmao2: :lmao2:Well, Fred has an actual plan. From his Web site:

We need to stop the bleeding of American jobs to countries like India or China.


We must incentivize or even penalize companies moving American jobs overseas.
We must work more cooperatively with management and labor to stop the loss of jobs to countries we compete with



Live Larger, with Fred Karger!

Vilifier of Zombies
03-20-2012, 02:38 AM
Ron Paul finished behind Fred Karger in the Puerto Rico vote.

:lmao2: :lmao2:

Who?

Vilifier of Zombies
03-20-2012, 02:38 AM
Well, Fred has an actual plan. From his Web site:

We need to stop the bleeding of American jobs to countries like India or China.


We must incentivize or even penalize companies moving American jobs overseas.
We must work more cooperatively with management and labor to stop the loss of jobs to countries we compete with



Live Larger, with Fred Karger!

Nevermind...

dsolo802
03-20-2012, 03:38 AM
Nevermind...Pull up a seat, I'll grab you a button.