Ron Paul would certainly be good on some things (decriminalization of drugs, ending foreign wars, auditing the fed, etc) but on the other hand, what he would do to the already horrible social services, minority rights, women's reproductive rights, etc would probably make all of it a wash in terms of total affect on human rights/suffering.
Why can't we find someone like Bernie Sanders who agrees the foreign wars and locking everyone up is wrong, but is still up for a strong safety net and increasing social mobility?
no you can have a totally sustainable economy with fiat money, it's just the manipulation of the worth of money and the deliberate inflation by this institution that is crippling us.
I'm talking about the practical issues of transferring to that model. If there's some gigantic expose on the real value of American wealth, I think people panic, and that causes chaos. I don't know enough about it to really have any insight, but I think if you told people their money isn't worth what they think it is, they'd flip out. I wouldn't be too happy, I know that
Nevertheless, Ron Paul's beliefs exhibit a severe lack of ability for rational thinking in a occupation that requires logical and rational thinking. That's a deal breaker for me. That's like making a schizophrenic lead people in quiet meditation.
Allow me to introduce you to 2012 Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul:
No, because the Republican party would never choose him as their candidate. He makes too much sense, and god forbid they have a candidate like that.
Honestly, I like what Obama was doing at the start of his term, but in the recent year, my support has dwindled. So, it wouldn't take much to get my vote. The Republican party just needs to make a decent choice. Instead, they parade these idiots who have no connection with the lower/middle class citizens, and don't want one. They don't understand the struggles of the average American, and they just want the Presidency for the glory of it. I think Ron Paul may be goofy looking/acting, but he seems genuine, and he honestly wants what's best for the country (and the people in it).
Ron Paul would certainly be good on some things (decriminalization of drugs, ending foreign wars, auditing the fed, etc) but on the other hand, what he would do to the already horrible social services, minority rights, women's reproductive rights, etc would probably make all of it a wash in terms of total affect on human rights/suffering.
Why can't we find someone like Bernie Sanders who agrees the foreign wars and locking everyone up is wrong, but is still up for a strong safety net and increasing social mobility?
i think i agree with the bureaucracies RON PAUL wants to close... The department of education is a joke. I mean look at what our schools look like, sometimes no matter how much money you throw at something, it just isn't going to get better. apart from that he's the only candidate that doesn't have talking points, or regurgitates Extremist ideals. If there's anyone to vote for is him. But i'm a afraid what will happen to him if he messes with the FED.
More stuff happening with Bank of America right now.
1) one subsidiary of BoA is FDIC backed and one is not.
2) The non-FDIC portions have racked up >50T in bad derivatives.
3) Because of the recent downgrade of BoA and an increasing need for international and European banks to call in assets, those >50T in bad derivatives are likely to be exposed soon, when their holders try to cash in.
4) In anticipation of this, BoA has transfered the >50T in bad derivatives from the non-FDIC branch to the FDIC branch.
5) Because of the way banking rules operate, when they >50T in bad derivatives goes boom, the creditors for those assets get first claim on anything of real value that BoA has, which includes ordinary investor's money. (regular savings accounts, ie, your 5,000 savings, my 10k, grannies 20k, etc)
6) As a result, once the creditors for those >50T in bad derivatives are done, FDIC will need to cover all remaining losses to the bank, because all this action has occurred in their FDIC backed subsidiary.
In case anyone wants a short form version of what the fuck went wrong:
A bank was given $1T to hold (by normal people depositing savings). They then bet $75T on all sorts of bullshit, even though they weren't supposed to (and then transfer it back to us). Our gov't has agreed that all other creditors get first dibs on the 1T holdings, then the govt will repay all initial debts (and make taxpayers foot the bill).
Meanwhile, 1-10+ people at the top have gained $10million or more per year for the past 10-20 years, with lower taxes year after year.
Oh... oh that's lovely... Never would of happened if Phil Gramm (R-Texas) & Jim Leach (R-Iowa) hadn't killed the Glass Steagall act that kept those two institutions separate. It never would of allowed for mortgage backed securities and quite possibly we would have avoided this entire mess... At least a lot of dead loans that are still on the banks books... but nooo 50 years of banking stability and steady profit aren't enough.
Well, we would still be on the hook for all the tax breaks and unfunded spending Bush kicked off, unfunded prescription drug program, tax breaks to the wealthy, 2 wars and trillions in private military contracts, billions in subsidies to big oil, big pharma, big agriculture and of course the Wall St bailouts that they like to pin on Obama, which he did continue by bailing out the automakers but because that was a ploy to bust up the unions they've been able to repay that.
We don't really put money in the right places, as far as the education system goes. We don't provide the proper incentives for teachers to do their jobs properly, i.e. teachers being payed competitive salaries, depending on how well their students perform.
It's not like the DoE is broken because it doesn't make sense.
Ganemi I completely agree but that change doesn't have to come from a bureaucracy.
Ganemi I completely agree but that change doesn't have to come from a bureaucracy.
The US department of Education is fine. If you account for the number of children living in poverty in the US (it's 1 in 4), meaning you only look at the 3 in 4 not in poverty, they score similarly to their EU counterparts.
There are a ton of US agencies that function just fine, some of them are amazing for how little funding they get. And it's not like private corporations aren't rife with examples of inefficiencies.
There is nothing that private enterprise could do to fix US education. Education, like healthcare, should be a state run socialized institution. On this Ron Paul (and anyone else arguing against the Department of Education) is unequivocally wrong. Full stop.
We don't really put money in the right places, as far as the education system goes. We don't provide the proper incentives for teachers to do their jobs properly, i.e. teachers being payed competitive salaries, depending on how well their students perform.
It's not like the DoE is broken because it doesn't make sense.
The problem with American education today is that it still follows the same methods that were established during the industrial revolution. We need to get away from "mass produced" education and get to a style that focuses on the individual learning needs of the student. Some schools are experimenting with "gamification" of education, turning the whole process into a system where students earn xp as they progress and level up when they reach a set goal. They start at zero and work their way up, whereas in the current system they start at 100% and can only go down from there (every time you get one wrong, you lose a point, thus the x/100 scores). They encourage more advanced students (there are no separate grades, only xp levels) to assist the less advanced students to help them meet their goals which we all know, teaching something to someone else is a great way to gain mastery of it yourself. We also teach children that there's only one right answer to every problem, which is completely false and actually limits the student's ability to think divergently, by making them think convergently.
Those are a few ways we fail in education (there are too many to recount) and, I think, some great ways to make it better. An education overhaul is definitely in order.
There is nothing that private enterprise could do to fix US education. Education, like healthcare, should be a state run socialized institution. On this Ron Paul (and anyone else arguing against the Department of Education) is unequivocally wrong. Full stop.
This is what i want, A locally run education system, not a federal cabinet. The problem i have with the department of education is related to what they currently do here in MASS with the MCAS tests instead of teaching kids better they just literally teach them how to take the MCAS test and call it a day. And then show the results as if the whole program is working, but in reality it's just that kids are better in taking the tests.
So i agree a local socialized plan would work better than a whole federal department, which would have no idea what Methuen, mass needs differently than Andover, Mass.
I agree there are a whole host of factors that lead into low test scores, not just teacher performance. There are a lot of studies that show kids do better when there are active parents are home involved in their performance. There are a ton of factors that play into that too, worse economy people working longer hours for less pay, more people out of work, depressed parents, absent parents, kids getting sick constantly from poor diet and lack of basic needs.
Once kids start getting homework, if its not being done they fall way behind.
It really does take a village to raise a child and the way society is structured we dump that responsibility all on a single teacher for a year and stuff the classroom full of more kids than they can actually teach effectively. Parents wash their hands of the responsibility either out of convenience or necessity and society continually guts a public education system that was never built to handle the lions share of the parenting to begin with.
The public education system isn't breaking down, society around it is crumbling and it's a functioning society that the public education system depends on in order to do its job.
No, because the Republican party would never choose him as their candidate. He makes too much sense, and god forbid they have a candidate like that.
Honestly, I like what Obama was doing at the start of his term, but in the recent year, my support has dwindled. So, it wouldn't take much to get my vote. The Republican party just needs to make a decent choice. Instead, they parade these idiots who have no connection with the lower/middle class citizens, and don't want one. They don't understand the struggles of the average American, and they just want the Presidency for the glory of it. I think Ron Paul may be goofy looking/acting, but he seems genuine, and he honestly wants what's best for the country (and the people in it).
I am actually quite confident that he may get the Republican nomination this year. I think Republicans are seeing that him and Cain are the only ones on-stage during the debates who actually have a plan, while the rest of the candidates just repeat the same drivel, without explaining how they're going to solve anything. The difference between him and Cain, however, is that he has integrity, while Cain flip-flops constantly, and people are starting to see the truth behind Cain's 9-9-9 plan, which is that it raises the taxes on the poor and the middle class. During the last Republican debate, many of Ron Paul's suggestions caused the audience to erupt into cheering.
Don't mean to speak for him, but imho, not understanding evolution, wanting to cut the education system, wanting to cut taxes(which are already super low) during a recession, and something else, but I just ran 6 miles and can't think straight.
Cutting taxes is the only way you're going to stimulate this economy and get it going again. The government is taking money from the American tax-payers and spending it on things like:
-Foreign aid to other countries
-Foreign wars
-Keeping troops in Germany, Korea, Japan, etc.
-Welfare and hand-outs to illegal immigrants
-Wasteful departments
-Bailouts of banks and other corporations
So the idea that taking money out of the hands out of hard working Americans and wasting it on these things, I find just absurd. The economy will not grow with the government taking people's money and wasting it. The economy WILL grow when the people get to keep more of their money, and end up going out and spending it. THAT is what stimulates the economy.
And he does NOT want to cut the education system. He wants to cut the Department of Education. There's a HUGE difference. There's a disconnect between the Department of Education and the schools, and the teachers have been complaining about it for years. The DoE needs to go.
There is nothing that private enterprise could do to fix US education. Education, like healthcare, should be a state run socialized institution. On this Ron Paul (and anyone else arguing against the Department of Education) is unequivocally wrong. Full stop.
The issue there isn't exactly that, it's more of a matter of choice. It's fine that you, and many many others, believe that school should be a socialized institution. The question is what of those that don't agree with you? They're basically forced into that system, even if they think their kids won't benefit much from it. Or else, if they want to send their kids to private school, they're forced to pay both for the public schools (through paying their taxes) AND for private school. May sound like it's fine, rich people who want to send their kids to private school can do that. But what about poor people? As usual, they get the shaft. Either send their kids to a shitty public school where they have no future and are surrounded by gangs, or attempt to home-school their kids while maintaining 2 or 3 jobs. It's a shitty situation, and more choice is always better.
And likewise for all those programs. Social Security sounds great. Until some people realize they'll never see anything from it. If you want it, that's great. But again, this is about those people that don't want it. Why should those people be forced into it? What's so wrong with saying I don't want to pay into SS, and I don't want to ever receive benefits?
This is what i want, A locally run education system, not a federal cabinet. The problem i have with the department of education is related to what they currently do here in MASS with the MCAS tests instead of teaching kids better they just literally teach them how to take the MCAS test and call it a day. And then show the results as if the whole program is working, but in reality it's just that kids are better in taking the tests.
So i agree a local socialized plan would work better than a whole federal department, which would have no idea what Methuen, mass needs differently than Andover, Mass.
Remember when we spoke about states being easier to bully by corporations than the federal government? this same thing works for education. Texas orders all of their books at one time, so they can have school books custom written to their board's needs. The Texas history books are white-washed garbage in comparison to what should be taught, but now that's the cheapest newest book and most other states order from that pool albeit in smaller chunks.
There is literally nothing wrong with a federally run dept of education, unless it's used as a political tool between two disfuctional parties who are working only for the benefit of the elite. There should be standardized information being taught. If anything the dept of education should have *more* reach and more funding.
And like Vig said, the homelife has a ton to do with the quality of education, so when you have 1 in 7 american kids being malnourished, and 1 in 4 being raised in poverty, well those aspects need to be fixed first or even the most perfect and well funded school won't be able to do anything.
Damn welfare recipients..why don't they get jobs...oh yeah..no jobs to be had
Damn immigrants...it not our fault your country is a war zone...it's the fault of whoever is creating the insatiable demand for drugs...oh yeah..right..
I know it's not that simple...But it is easy to play the blame game
The issue there isn't exactly that, it's more of a matter of choice. It's fine that you, and many many others, believe that school should be a socialized institution. The question is what of those that don't agree with you? They're basically forced into that system, even if they think their kids won't benefit much from it. Or else, if they want to send their kids to private school, they're forced to pay both for the public schools (through paying their taxes) AND for private school. May sound like it's fine, rich people who want to send their kids to private school can do that. But what about poor people? As usual, they get the shaft. Either send their kids to a shitty public school where they have no future and are surrounded by gangs, or attempt to home-school their kids while maintaining 2 or 3 jobs. It's a shitty situation, and more choice is always better.
If you're rich enough for private school, you're rich enough to fund other people's kids education. This is a society, not a mountain hut for you to live out your hermit fantasies. I'm a gay man, should I be upset that I pay a shitload of taxes here in iceland that go to single mothers and school systems? I'm not, because I want the people around me to be well educated, fed, healthy, and have economic options. The reason socialized nationwide stuff can work so well, is how little needs to be put in by each person.
If you're selfish enough to focus on the pittance of your taxes that goes to public schools, when far more is going to buy pew-pew planes or subsidize already filthy-rich assholes, well, the word for that is "sociopath".
And no one "doesn't get much out of it" like you put forward. Any and all shortcoming stem from people who are trying to destroy the system. If it were funded and cherished like the education system of the other first world nations, the US education system would be the envy of the world. Instead it's used as a tool to distract poors from what's really going on by pitting them against one another.
I am actually quite confident that he may get the Republican nomination this year. I think Republicans are seeing that him and Cain are the only ones on-stage during the debates who actually have a plan, while the rest of the candidates just repeat the same drivel, without explaining how they're going to solve anything.
You're using way to much common sense here, which both parties seem to always lack when they make their choice. They'll choose Romney, because he fits their mold the most.
If you're rich enough for private school, you're rich enough to fund other people's kids education. This is a society, not a mountain hut for you to live out your hermit fantasies. I'm a gay man, should I be upset that I pay a shitload of taxes here in iceland that go to single mothers and school systems? I'm not, because I want the people around me to be well educated, fed, healthy, and have economic options. The reason socialized nationwide stuff can work so well, is how little needs to be put in by each person.
If you're selfish enough to focus on the pittance of your taxes that goes to public schools, when far more is going to buy pew-pew planes or subsidize already filthy-rich assholes, well, the word for that is "sociopath".
That's why I specifically excluded rich people. I said, "rich people who want to send their kids to private school can do that. But what about poor people? As usual, they get the shaft." By "do that" I meant pay taxes and pay for private school at the same time, they're capable, poor people aren't.
I can see someone justifying it for rich people. But what about poor people who can't afford private school? They're stuck with crappy gang-infested public schools.
Why should those people be forced into it? What's so wrong with saying I don't want to pay into SS, and I don't want to ever receive benefits?
Because people are short sighted and about the time they see the value in the system and they choose to opt in, its about the time they would start drawing benefits...
No one buys flood insurance until they see a tree stump float through their living room, then suddenly that becomes a good idea.
We saw this with the anti-governemnt retorhic bitting a bunch of people in the ass this year when a record number of natural disasters cleaned the clocks of a few states and left them crying for FEMA to come pick up the pieces. Oh really suddenly a government big enough to help isn't helping fast enough... what do you want? To be left twisting in the wind or to be helped out when you need it?
Im a liberal, so I probably dream bigger than you. For instance, I want everybody to have healthcare. I want lazy people to have healthcare. I want stupid people to have healthcare. I want drug addicts to have healthcare. I want bums who refuse to work even when given the opportunity to have healthcare. Im willing to pay for that with my taxes, because I want to live in a society where it doesnt matter how much of a loser you are, if you need medical care you can get it. And not just by crowding up an emergency room that should be dedicated exclusively to helping people in emergencies.
Because people are short sighted and about the time they see the value in the system and they choose to opt in, its about the time they would start drawing benefits...
No one buys flood insurance until they see a tree stump float through their living room, then suddenly that becomes a good idea.
That may be true. And maybe I am short sighted. But does that give you the right to force me into that system, "or else"? I don't understand that part.
I am actually quite confident that he may get the Republican nomination this year. I think Republicans are seeing that him and Cain are the only ones on-stage during the debates who actually have a plan, while the rest of the candidates just repeat the same drivel, without explaining how they're going to solve anything. The difference between him and Cain, however, is that he has integrity, while Cain flip-flops constantly, and people are starting to see the truth behind Cain's 9-9-9 plan, which is that it raises the taxes on the poor and the middle class. During the last Republican debate, many of Ron Paul's suggestions caused the audience to erupt into cheering.
There is no chance Ron Paul is the Republican nominee. Everyone turns out for federal elections, but it's mostly partisans that vote in primaries. In Republican caucuses, that means far-right conservatives are giving themselves the most say, with moderates having less impact. This is why you hear potential Republican nominees pandering to the partisan base, the Tea party membership, and not to libertarians or other, more moderate/left-leaning conservatives.
There's a decent chance Mitt Romney pulls the nomination, as he's very much an establishment figure despite having some left-leaning tendencies, but he's as radical as the Republican caucus is going to go.
What's so wrong with saying I don't want to pay into SS, and I don't want to ever receive benefits?
Let's say that happens and everyone just stops paying - it's every man for himself. As a society, what are you doing with the poor elderly who don't have enough saved (say medical bills wipe them out) and can no longer work?
As an aside, it was the will of the Framers that the nation work together to take care of the citizenry, "promote the general Welfare" and all, even if the SS system wasn't explicitly defined in the Constitution.
There's a decent chance Mitt Romney pulls the nomination, as he's very much an establishment figure despite having some left-leaning tendencies, but he's as radical as the Republican caucus is going to go.
But he's mormon... I know, I don't care either, but it really matters to Republicans for some reason.
Let's say that happens and everyone just stops paying - it's every man for himself. As a society, what are you doing with the poor elderly who don't have enough saved (say medical bills wipe them out) and can no longer work?
I didn't say abolish it. I said give an opt-out. So are you saying that if SS was optional, that everyone would opt out of it?
If the advantages of SS are so great, as you say they are, wouldn't there still be lots and lots of people, even the majority, still in it? If so, what's so wrong with a few people like me who, knowing the risks full well, would still choose to opt-out? Why is that immoral?
I can see someone justifying it for rich people. But what about poor people who can't afford private school? They're stuck with crappy gang-infested public schools.
The reason it's gang infested is because the wealthy elite of the US have been attacking the middle and lower class for over a hundred years on various fronts. The same people who push for school vouchers or private schools are the same ones that push for an abolishing of minimum wage, reduction or elimination of safety standards, union busting, etc etc etc. They're called selfish conservative assholes, and you're trying to appose one facet of their tactics while endorsing another. If you think the privatization of lower level schools wouldn't mirror exactly what's happening with university, where only wealthy kids get to attend and a few lottery picked minorities, I've got a bridge to sell you. Why is it that the healthcare system fails so miserably in this model, but somehow magically education would work? Here's a hint, it won't.
Let's say that happens and everyone just stops paying - it's every man for himself. As a society, what are you doing with the poor elderly who don't have enough saved (say medical bills wipe them out) and can no longer work?
Well, Ron Paul has gone on the record as saying these people should just be allowed to die, when it was framed as medical insurance instead of pensions, so I'm sure his answer would be the same on this front.
If the advantages of SS are so great, as you say they are, wouldn't there still be lots and lots of people, even the majority, still in it? If so, what's so wrong with a few people like me who, knowing the risks full well, would still choose to opt-out? Why is that immoral?
Dude, SS blows! You cannot live off of SS alone, unlike my generous pension here in Iceland or in Germany where I could literally live off of it after 65, albeit not as nicely as with my savings that I'm making. The reason people would opt out as soon as a few people start, is the public framing would be attacking keeping it working. "you don't get SS, why should we as the government keep it running?!" Just like they do with demonizing welfare, housing subsidization, etc.
You haven't thought any of these thought experiments out further than "I would have more money left over each month because of less taxes". Why do you think every nation with better education scores in the US uses a socialized national level education system? Same with healthcare, same with pensions. The US has gone down this privatize everything route already to such a degree we can see it is a total failure. It's not like when the final minor tethers are released it will magically balloon into a functional system. The examples of how to run basic human necessities is proven. Money and "rational actors" and shopping around doesn't belong in the equation.
I didn't say abolish it. I said give an opt-out. So are you saying that if SS was optional, that everyone would opt out of it?
If the advantages of SS are so great, as you say they are, wouldn't there still be lots and lots of people, even the majority, still in it? If so, what's so wrong with a few people like me who, knowing the risks full well, would still choose to opt-out? Why is that immoral?
you see, this is exactly part of the problem.
SS should be mandatory in my opinion. everyone should pay and everyone should get the benefits. this ensures social stability. i am happy to pay SS tax even though i get 0 tax refund at the moment.
to look at the bigger picture, it is not just about me. it is about someone else who is incapable of working for what ever reason.
i believe there would be far more criminals if SS was abolished or even made optional.
if it was optional, there would be lot of people opting out and as a result there would be lot of people not getting benefits. some of them would be forced to commit crime in order to survive.
it may not be a perfect system and the benefits could be more compared to the taxes may be and may be the top 1% could pay more SS tax... but i believe we need SS to stay.
why are we even talking about SS ?
as far as i know, social security is one of the thing that America should be proud of and one of the thing that works well and not in debt, unlike banks.
What really needs to happen is the payroll cap should be removed, and it would be functional well past this OMG 2040!!! deadline. And Obama needs to stop making these dumb-ass payroll tax holidays that result in like 8-10 dollars per american extra a month, but en masse results in less and less money in the SS fund, making way for easier attacks to abolish it sooner (and that is coming, don't kid yourself. The 1% absolutely wants to abolish SS).
Right now when you make 40k a year you contribute a certain percent, and a person who makes 80k a year puts in even more to SS, but after around 110k a year, everyone is paying the same amount in. This means that those 1%ers are not putting in anymore than those actual small-business entrepreneurs who do real work.
Why is it that the healthcare system fails so miserably in this model, but somehow magically education would work? Here's a hint, it won't.
Personally I see them as the same thing. There wouldn't even be HMOs had the government not sponsored them. It's ridiculous to claim that the HMO sprung up out of the free-market. We didn't have them until the government started subsidizing corporations for providing healthcare to their employees. Before that, if a company offered you benefits, they just paid for the doctor's bill straight up. It's not until the government started subsidizing that stuff (by giving corporations tax breaks), that they sought to maximize those tax breaks by using HMOs.
Doesn't matter if an HMO is shitty, or rips off its customers, or shuns away people based on bullshit things like pre-existing conditions, they're still paid for with tax money.
What you're seeing in education is pretty much the same, albeit on a smaller scale. Doesn't matter how shitty the performance of a school is, doesn't matter how gang-infested it is, doesn't matter how poorly the kids do, it's still paid for. It will never go bankrupt for doing poorly. It will never get restructured.
Compare that to Sweden where they would actually shut a school down if it under-performs, and the difference is stark.
I simply don't see a moral problem with letting people opt-out of such systems. Once it's proven they're good, and benefit the community, people could opt in. But in the meantime, it seems really short-sighted to force people to stay under such conditions.
Because certainly HMOs and government subsidization wasn't the next step in a for-profit system, it was just those ooga booga big gov federalies screwing us over!
I left it out before, but there is no point now. Why doesn't Somalia have the best schools in the world again? They certainly don't have any big government getting in the way.
I simply don't see a moral problem with letting people opt-out of such systems. Once it's proven they're good, and benefit the community, people could opt in. But in the meantime, it seems really short-sighted to force people to stay under such conditions.
well then you are not seeing the similarities between what you are saying and a billionaire not paying his fair share of tax.
it is simple, people who are more fortunate financially MUST help out the society THEY live in in a proportionate manner because it should be in their own interest to contribute to their own society. if they don't then we end up with problems like we have today.
I simply don't see a moral problem with letting people opt-out of such systems. Once it's proven they're good, and benefit the community, people could opt in. But in the meantime, it seems really short-sighted to force people to stay under such conditions.
A limited form of the Social Security program began as a measure to implement "social insurance" during the Great Depression of the 1930s, when poverty rates among senior citizens exceeded 50 percent.
Before SS was implemented there were cases of elderly eating cat-food to survive. This is absolutely the situation that we will return to if SS is abolished.
Mark Zuckerberg has made from Facebook. He's changed the way people live, and most feel he deserves every penny. The heart of what people are outraged over isn't wealth inequality; It's wealth inequality that is perceived as being undeserved, unearned, or in many cases, earned by those responsible for the economy's deepest problems
The heart of what people are outraged over isn't wealth inequality; It's wealth inequality that is perceived as being undeserved, unearned, or in many cases, earned by those responsible for the economy's deepest problems
And that's what I'm taking out of this whole Occupy movement. Every movement has it's crazies, and it's hard to get everyone educated with correct facts with every major news station spinning things one way or another. I think when you take away the violence, and those who just want to scream at the top of their lungs, what you said here is the central idea. It's an idea I can get behind.
I just hope the scope of this movement doesn't become to wide or too blurry for it to either A) Die down or Not get any support from either side.
If this is obvious to everyone, then sorry for rehashing. I've just been watching this movement for a while now, trying to figure out where I stand and what it is they are saying. I think today I've finally figured it out.
This is the thing though. First, his success is not repeatable by formula. It was a lot of luck, the perfect timing of technologies, and numerous people's work. Even if this were the case of him creating facebook whole cloth by himself in a basement, he still doesn't "deserve" billions for that effort. Because a system that allows one person to have billions for enabling people to waste time at work playing farmville, also allows for another million to be food insecure or not have heating in their house.
It's this fallacy that the system makes it so anyone who works hard and has a brilliant mind is gonna be a billionaire, JUST LIKE ZUCKERBERG! It's bullshit.
I left it out before, but there is no point now. Why doesn't Somalia have the best schools in the world again? They certainly don't have any big government getting in the way.
I'm not sure there's an answer I can give you that will be satisfactory.
Basically, the place is in chaos. Was under Communist rule until 1991. They (yeah, big gov't peeps) completely raped the place for decades. Talking genocide, nationalization, the whole nine yards. What we're seeing now is essentially the left-overs of that.
Even nowadays though, there are tons of governments trying to claim their stake there. Basically a bunch of local tribes trying to overthrow the government for one reason or another. Those tribes are exclusively sponsored by foreign governments, that's where they get their weapons from. Anywhere from Sudan sponsoring extremist Muslim tribes to establish Somalia as a Muslim country, to neighboring governments vying for more land, even to NATO and the US sponsoring certain sects for their own interests.
Not to mention natural resources that all these groups are after.
It's a mess. A huge mess.
And definitely not an example of Anarchy in the slightest. You have government intervention in every way imaginable. The worst kind too, violent government intervention.
And it's still worth noting that since the Communist regime collapsed back in '91, their death toll dropped significantly. I believe in 2010-2011 Mexico is now the most violent place on earth for that stuff. Somalia doesn't star as the top "Welcome to the Thunderdome" place for a while now.
What I don't get about your opposition to what I'm saying, is how are you combining Anarcho-Syndaclism with Big Government ideology? Unless you're trying to use Big Government to transition into Anarcho-Syndcalism.
What I don't get about your opposition to what I'm saying, is how are you combining Anarcho-Syndaclism with Big Government ideology? Unless you're trying to use Big Government to transition into Anarcho-Syndcalism.
Because there is no way on earth to harbor in a golden age of anarcho syndicalism through the 2012 election, but in the current climate it *is* possible to copy the capitalism bandaids that europe, scandinavia, canada, have managed to vastly improve the lives of the lower class. There just needs to be incredibly heavy political pressure.
No improvements are gonna come from a Ron Paul presidency except for those 1%.
Because certainly HMOs and government subsidization wasn't the next step in a for-profit system, it was just those ooga booga big gov federalies screwing us over!
I left it out before, but there is no point now. Why doesn't Somalia have the best schools in the world again? They certainly don't have any big government getting in the way.
actually they kinda do... the somalian (and largely, african governments as a whole) are not only insanely wealthy, but also greedy and violently opposed to giving up power.
honestly, if the governments of africa sorted their shit out, there wouldn't be any need for "feed le starving africaaaan" adverts.
honestly, if the governments of africa sorted their shit out, there wouldn't be any need for "feed le starving africaaaan" adverts.
This doesn't belong in the thread, but Africa's problems lay squarely at the feet of the US and Europe, for raping the shit out of their resources, manpower (remember that slavery thing?) colonialism, and allowing foreign nationals (this means rich white westerners) to still profit off all the natural resources there. If you don't know about the history of Africa, specifically colonialism, you have no authority to offer an opinion on the matter.
So, it looks like Obama is going to sacrifice Sarbanes-Oxley in order to get his shitty jobs bill passed (it's shitty cause it's mostly just tax breaks). SOX passed after Enron and was already a weak-sauce regulation designed to prevent implosion like Enron. How anyone could think what we need now is *less* regulations on insanely large companies is beyond me, but he's shown himself to be a puppet of the 1%.
well, british people kinda HAVE to learn about colonialism... it's part of our nations history. and fortunately not everything we're tought is sugar coated and lovely.
but i'll leave you to it, ben. you seem to have a way of, well... how can i put it:
people with ideas are great, because an idea can change, and be moulded, and grow into something incredible.
people with beliefs are stupid, because people will usually do nothing but fight and die for there beliefs no matter how wrong they are.
Well, Ron Paul has gone on the record as saying these people should just be allowed to die, when it was framed as medical insurance instead of pensions, so I'm sure his answer would be the same on this front.
A limited form of the Social Security program began as a measure to implement "social insurance" during the Great Depression of the 1930s, when poverty rates among senior citizens exceeded 50 percent.
Before SS was implemented there were cases of elderly eating cat-food to survive. This is absolutely the situation that we will return to if SS is abolished.
Social Security is no longer able to sustain itself. It is giving out more than it's taking in. I'm 21. By the time I'm old enough to take advantage of it, it will be gone. AH, but that's not the case, because to cover for this, the government will just either borrow more money, or print more fake money at the federal reserve. You need to start worrying more about the economy if we're not willing to make the cuts.
Well, Ron Paul has gone on the record as saying these people should just be allowed to die, when it was framed as medical insurance instead of pensions, so I'm sure his answer would be the same on this front.
Ron Paul also said when he was in the medical field in the 50's, when there was no social security, they never turned people away from hospitals like they do now. They also didn't turn people away from churches at the time.
It was easier to see a doctor then than it is now.
We have to become self-reliant out of necessity, because the government is about to crash from their overspending and pure ignorance. All those government benefits are about to completely disappear in the next couple of years.
Social Security is no longer able to sustain itself. It is giving out more than it's taking in. I'm 21. By the time I'm old enough to take advantage of it, it will be gone. AH, but that's not the case, because to cover for this, the government will just either borrow more money, or print more fake money at the federal reserve. You need to start worrying more about the economy if we're not willing to make the cuts.
This is completely incorrect. SS is solvent til 2040, and would be solvent indefinitely with the payroll cap removed so that people making over 110k a year were paying more.
If you want to argue that it won't be around by the time you're retirement age, I won't argue with that cause I see it being attacked by Ds and Rs, and I see the writing on the wall, but the only reason it will be gone is because political attacks and destruction, not because it is running out of money.
Nice try, but I watched this debate. Ron Paul was explaining what RexM just described, and when the debate moderator tried to attack Paul by putting words in his mouth, a few audience members yelled out, "let him die!". There was actually a post-debate interview where Ron Paul commented on being disgusted by their behavior. I'll edit this post when I find it.
This is completely incorrect. SS is solvent til 2040, and would be solvent indefinitely with the payroll cap removed so that people making over 110k a year were paying more.
If you want to argue that it won't be around by the time you're retirement age, I won't argue with that cause I see it being attacked by Ds and Rs, and I see the writing on the wall, but the only reason it will be gone is because political attacks and destruction, not because it is running out of money.
And where are we getting the money? We're broke. We're only staying afloat because of the constant printing of money out of thin air by the fed, and the borrowing of money that gets us further and further into debt. We need to make cuts, and neither side wants to. The only candidate who is offering to make the cuts is Ron Paul.
And where are we getting the money? We're broke. We're only staying afloat because of the constant printing of money out of thin air by the fed, and the borrowing of money that gets us further and further into debt. We need to make cuts, and neither side wants to. The only candidate who is offering to make the cuts is Ron Paul.
Cuts aren't going to solve anything. All that will do is slow it down while reducing public services. What you're suggesting would be like cutting the head off of a hydra. It will just grow more heads. What should be done is for the president to sign an executive order taking away the Fed's ability to create money and put it in the hands of the Treasury, now and forever. Then they should phase out Federal Reserve Notes and replace them with US Treasury Notes that are created without interest attached to them. They would also have to nationalize the banks because there would be no profit in a sustainable banking system.
Replies
Why can't we find someone like Bernie Sanders who agrees the foreign wars and locking everyone up is wrong, but is still up for a strong safety net and increasing social mobility?
I'm talking about the practical issues of transferring to that model. If there's some gigantic expose on the real value of American wealth, I think people panic, and that causes chaos. I don't know enough about it to really have any insight, but I think if you told people their money isn't worth what they think it is, they'd flip out. I wouldn't be too happy, I know that
What beliefs are you referring to?
Honestly, I like what Obama was doing at the start of his term, but in the recent year, my support has dwindled. So, it wouldn't take much to get my vote. The Republican party just needs to make a decent choice. Instead, they parade these idiots who have no connection with the lower/middle class citizens, and don't want one. They don't understand the struggles of the average American, and they just want the Presidency for the glory of it. I think Ron Paul may be goofy looking/acting, but he seems genuine, and he honestly wants what's best for the country (and the people in it).
i think i agree with the bureaucracies RON PAUL wants to close... The department of education is a joke. I mean look at what our schools look like, sometimes no matter how much money you throw at something, it just isn't going to get better. apart from that he's the only candidate that doesn't have talking points, or regurgitates Extremist ideals. If there's anyone to vote for is him. But i'm a afraid what will happen to him if he messes with the FED.
Well, we would still be on the hook for all the tax breaks and unfunded spending Bush kicked off, unfunded prescription drug program, tax breaks to the wealthy, 2 wars and trillions in private military contracts, billions in subsidies to big oil, big pharma, big agriculture and of course the Wall St bailouts that they like to pin on Obama, which he did continue by bailing out the automakers but because that was a ploy to bust up the unions they've been able to repay that.
Ganemi I completely agree but that change doesn't have to come from a bureaucracy.
The US department of Education is fine. If you account for the number of children living in poverty in the US (it's 1 in 4), meaning you only look at the 3 in 4 not in poverty, they score similarly to their EU counterparts.
There are a ton of US agencies that function just fine, some of them are amazing for how little funding they get. And it's not like private corporations aren't rife with examples of inefficiencies.
There is nothing that private enterprise could do to fix US education. Education, like healthcare, should be a state run socialized institution. On this Ron Paul (and anyone else arguing against the Department of Education) is unequivocally wrong. Full stop.
The problem with American education today is that it still follows the same methods that were established during the industrial revolution. We need to get away from "mass produced" education and get to a style that focuses on the individual learning needs of the student. Some schools are experimenting with "gamification" of education, turning the whole process into a system where students earn xp as they progress and level up when they reach a set goal. They start at zero and work their way up, whereas in the current system they start at 100% and can only go down from there (every time you get one wrong, you lose a point, thus the x/100 scores). They encourage more advanced students (there are no separate grades, only xp levels) to assist the less advanced students to help them meet their goals which we all know, teaching something to someone else is a great way to gain mastery of it yourself. We also teach children that there's only one right answer to every problem, which is completely false and actually limits the student's ability to think divergently, by making them think convergently.
Those are a few ways we fail in education (there are too many to recount) and, I think, some great ways to make it better. An education overhaul is definitely in order.
This is what i want, A locally run education system, not a federal cabinet. The problem i have with the department of education is related to what they currently do here in MASS with the MCAS tests instead of teaching kids better they just literally teach them how to take the MCAS test and call it a day. And then show the results as if the whole program is working, but in reality it's just that kids are better in taking the tests.
So i agree a local socialized plan would work better than a whole federal department, which would have no idea what Methuen, mass needs differently than Andover, Mass.
Once kids start getting homework, if its not being done they fall way behind.
It really does take a village to raise a child and the way society is structured we dump that responsibility all on a single teacher for a year and stuff the classroom full of more kids than they can actually teach effectively. Parents wash their hands of the responsibility either out of convenience or necessity and society continually guts a public education system that was never built to handle the lions share of the parenting to begin with.
The public education system isn't breaking down, society around it is crumbling and it's a functioning society that the public education system depends on in order to do its job.
I am actually quite confident that he may get the Republican nomination this year. I think Republicans are seeing that him and Cain are the only ones on-stage during the debates who actually have a plan, while the rest of the candidates just repeat the same drivel, without explaining how they're going to solve anything. The difference between him and Cain, however, is that he has integrity, while Cain flip-flops constantly, and people are starting to see the truth behind Cain's 9-9-9 plan, which is that it raises the taxes on the poor and the middle class. During the last Republican debate, many of Ron Paul's suggestions caused the audience to erupt into cheering.
Cutting taxes is the only way you're going to stimulate this economy and get it going again. The government is taking money from the American tax-payers and spending it on things like:
-Foreign aid to other countries
-Foreign wars
-Keeping troops in Germany, Korea, Japan, etc.
-Welfare and hand-outs to illegal immigrants
-Wasteful departments
-Bailouts of banks and other corporations
So the idea that taking money out of the hands out of hard working Americans and wasting it on these things, I find just absurd. The economy will not grow with the government taking people's money and wasting it. The economy WILL grow when the people get to keep more of their money, and end up going out and spending it. THAT is what stimulates the economy.
And he does NOT want to cut the education system. He wants to cut the Department of Education. There's a HUGE difference. There's a disconnect between the Department of Education and the schools, and the teachers have been complaining about it for years. The DoE needs to go.
The issue there isn't exactly that, it's more of a matter of choice. It's fine that you, and many many others, believe that school should be a socialized institution. The question is what of those that don't agree with you? They're basically forced into that system, even if they think their kids won't benefit much from it. Or else, if they want to send their kids to private school, they're forced to pay both for the public schools (through paying their taxes) AND for private school. May sound like it's fine, rich people who want to send their kids to private school can do that. But what about poor people? As usual, they get the shaft. Either send their kids to a shitty public school where they have no future and are surrounded by gangs, or attempt to home-school their kids while maintaining 2 or 3 jobs. It's a shitty situation, and more choice is always better.
And likewise for all those programs. Social Security sounds great. Until some people realize they'll never see anything from it. If you want it, that's great. But again, this is about those people that don't want it. Why should those people be forced into it? What's so wrong with saying I don't want to pay into SS, and I don't want to ever receive benefits?
Remember when we spoke about states being easier to bully by corporations than the federal government? this same thing works for education. Texas orders all of their books at one time, so they can have school books custom written to their board's needs. The Texas history books are white-washed garbage in comparison to what should be taught, but now that's the cheapest newest book and most other states order from that pool albeit in smaller chunks.
There is literally nothing wrong with a federally run dept of education, unless it's used as a political tool between two disfuctional parties who are working only for the benefit of the elite. There should be standardized information being taught. If anything the dept of education should have *more* reach and more funding.
And like Vig said, the homelife has a ton to do with the quality of education, so when you have 1 in 7 american kids being malnourished, and 1 in 4 being raised in poverty, well those aspects need to be fixed first or even the most perfect and well funded school won't be able to do anything.
Damn welfare recipients..why don't they get jobs...oh yeah..no jobs to be had
Damn immigrants...it not our fault your country is a war zone...it's the fault of whoever is creating the insatiable demand for drugs...oh yeah..right..
I know it's not that simple...But it is easy to play the blame game
If you're rich enough for private school, you're rich enough to fund other people's kids education. This is a society, not a mountain hut for you to live out your hermit fantasies. I'm a gay man, should I be upset that I pay a shitload of taxes here in iceland that go to single mothers and school systems? I'm not, because I want the people around me to be well educated, fed, healthy, and have economic options. The reason socialized nationwide stuff can work so well, is how little needs to be put in by each person.
If you're selfish enough to focus on the pittance of your taxes that goes to public schools, when far more is going to buy pew-pew planes or subsidize already filthy-rich assholes, well, the word for that is "sociopath".
And no one "doesn't get much out of it" like you put forward. Any and all shortcoming stem from people who are trying to destroy the system. If it were funded and cherished like the education system of the other first world nations, the US education system would be the envy of the world. Instead it's used as a tool to distract poors from what's really going on by pitting them against one another.
You're using way to much common sense here, which both parties seem to always lack when they make their choice. They'll choose Romney, because he fits their mold the most.
That's why I specifically excluded rich people. I said, "rich people who want to send their kids to private school can do that. But what about poor people? As usual, they get the shaft." By "do that" I meant pay taxes and pay for private school at the same time, they're capable, poor people aren't.
I can see someone justifying it for rich people. But what about poor people who can't afford private school? They're stuck with crappy gang-infested public schools.
No one buys flood insurance until they see a tree stump float through their living room, then suddenly that becomes a good idea.
We saw this with the anti-governemnt retorhic bitting a bunch of people in the ass this year when a record number of natural disasters cleaned the clocks of a few states and left them crying for FEMA to come pick up the pieces. Oh really suddenly a government big enough to help isn't helping fast enough... what do you want? To be left twisting in the wind or to be helped out when you need it?
Because a truly great society still catches people who fall, even if they where stupid and tried to miss the safety net.
That may be true. And maybe I am short sighted. But does that give you the right to force me into that system, "or else"? I don't understand that part.
There is no chance Ron Paul is the Republican nominee. Everyone turns out for federal elections, but it's mostly partisans that vote in primaries. In Republican caucuses, that means far-right conservatives are giving themselves the most say, with moderates having less impact. This is why you hear potential Republican nominees pandering to the partisan base, the Tea party membership, and not to libertarians or other, more moderate/left-leaning conservatives.
There's a decent chance Mitt Romney pulls the nomination, as he's very much an establishment figure despite having some left-leaning tendencies, but he's as radical as the Republican caucus is going to go.
Let's say that happens and everyone just stops paying - it's every man for himself. As a society, what are you doing with the poor elderly who don't have enough saved (say medical bills wipe them out) and can no longer work?
As an aside, it was the will of the Framers that the nation work together to take care of the citizenry, "promote the general Welfare" and all, even if the SS system wasn't explicitly defined in the Constitution.
But he's mormon... I know, I don't care either, but it really matters to Republicans for some reason.
I didn't say abolish it. I said give an opt-out. So are you saying that if SS was optional, that everyone would opt out of it?
If the advantages of SS are so great, as you say they are, wouldn't there still be lots and lots of people, even the majority, still in it? If so, what's so wrong with a few people like me who, knowing the risks full well, would still choose to opt-out? Why is that immoral?
The reason it's gang infested is because the wealthy elite of the US have been attacking the middle and lower class for over a hundred years on various fronts. The same people who push for school vouchers or private schools are the same ones that push for an abolishing of minimum wage, reduction or elimination of safety standards, union busting, etc etc etc. They're called selfish conservative assholes, and you're trying to appose one facet of their tactics while endorsing another. If you think the privatization of lower level schools wouldn't mirror exactly what's happening with university, where only wealthy kids get to attend and a few lottery picked minorities, I've got a bridge to sell you. Why is it that the healthcare system fails so miserably in this model, but somehow magically education would work? Here's a hint, it won't.
Well, Ron Paul has gone on the record as saying these people should just be allowed to die, when it was framed as medical insurance instead of pensions, so I'm sure his answer would be the same on this front.
Dude, SS blows! You cannot live off of SS alone, unlike my generous pension here in Iceland or in Germany where I could literally live off of it after 65, albeit not as nicely as with my savings that I'm making. The reason people would opt out as soon as a few people start, is the public framing would be attacking keeping it working. "you don't get SS, why should we as the government keep it running?!" Just like they do with demonizing welfare, housing subsidization, etc.
You haven't thought any of these thought experiments out further than "I would have more money left over each month because of less taxes". Why do you think every nation with better education scores in the US uses a socialized national level education system? Same with healthcare, same with pensions. The US has gone down this privatize everything route already to such a degree we can see it is a total failure. It's not like when the final minor tethers are released it will magically balloon into a functional system. The examples of how to run basic human necessities is proven. Money and "rational actors" and shopping around doesn't belong in the equation.
you see, this is exactly part of the problem.
SS should be mandatory in my opinion. everyone should pay and everyone should get the benefits. this ensures social stability. i am happy to pay SS tax even though i get 0 tax refund at the moment.
to look at the bigger picture, it is not just about me. it is about someone else who is incapable of working for what ever reason.
i believe there would be far more criminals if SS was abolished or even made optional.
if it was optional, there would be lot of people opting out and as a result there would be lot of people not getting benefits. some of them would be forced to commit crime in order to survive.
it may not be a perfect system and the benefits could be more compared to the taxes may be and may be the top 1% could pay more SS tax... but i believe we need SS to stay.
why are we even talking about SS ?
as far as i know, social security is one of the thing that America should be proud of and one of the thing that works well and not in debt, unlike banks.
Because Paul-tards are here.
What really needs to happen is the payroll cap should be removed, and it would be functional well past this OMG 2040!!! deadline. And Obama needs to stop making these dumb-ass payroll tax holidays that result in like 8-10 dollars per american extra a month, but en masse results in less and less money in the SS fund, making way for easier attacks to abolish it sooner (and that is coming, don't kid yourself. The 1% absolutely wants to abolish SS).
Right now when you make 40k a year you contribute a certain percent, and a person who makes 80k a year puts in even more to SS, but after around 110k a year, everyone is paying the same amount in. This means that those 1%ers are not putting in anymore than those actual small-business entrepreneurs who do real work.
Personally I see them as the same thing. There wouldn't even be HMOs had the government not sponsored them. It's ridiculous to claim that the HMO sprung up out of the free-market. We didn't have them until the government started subsidizing corporations for providing healthcare to their employees. Before that, if a company offered you benefits, they just paid for the doctor's bill straight up. It's not until the government started subsidizing that stuff (by giving corporations tax breaks), that they sought to maximize those tax breaks by using HMOs.
Doesn't matter if an HMO is shitty, or rips off its customers, or shuns away people based on bullshit things like pre-existing conditions, they're still paid for with tax money.
What you're seeing in education is pretty much the same, albeit on a smaller scale. Doesn't matter how shitty the performance of a school is, doesn't matter how gang-infested it is, doesn't matter how poorly the kids do, it's still paid for. It will never go bankrupt for doing poorly. It will never get restructured.
Compare that to Sweden where they would actually shut a school down if it under-performs, and the difference is stark.
I simply don't see a moral problem with letting people opt-out of such systems. Once it's proven they're good, and benefit the community, people could opt in. But in the meantime, it seems really short-sighted to force people to stay under such conditions.
I left it out before, but there is no point now. Why doesn't Somalia have the best schools in the world again? They certainly don't have any big government getting in the way.
well then you are not seeing the similarities between what you are saying and a billionaire not paying his fair share of tax.
it is simple, people who are more fortunate financially MUST help out the society THEY live in in a proportionate manner because it should be in their own interest to contribute to their own society. if they don't then we end up with problems like we have today.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/10/19/meet-the-1-percent.aspx
Um, it's already been proven to be good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)
A limited form of the Social Security program began as a measure to implement "social insurance" during the Great Depression of the 1930s, when poverty rates among senior citizens exceeded 50 percent.
Before SS was implemented there were cases of elderly eating cat-food to survive. This is absolutely the situation that we will return to if SS is abolished.
And that's what I'm taking out of this whole Occupy movement. Every movement has it's crazies, and it's hard to get everyone educated with correct facts with every major news station spinning things one way or another. I think when you take away the violence, and those who just want to scream at the top of their lungs, what you said here is the central idea. It's an idea I can get behind.
I just hope the scope of this movement doesn't become to wide or too blurry for it to either A) Die down or
If this is obvious to everyone, then sorry for rehashing. I've just been watching this movement for a while now, trying to figure out where I stand and what it is they are saying. I think today I've finally figured it out.
This is the thing though. First, his success is not repeatable by formula. It was a lot of luck, the perfect timing of technologies, and numerous people's work. Even if this were the case of him creating facebook whole cloth by himself in a basement, he still doesn't "deserve" billions for that effort. Because a system that allows one person to have billions for enabling people to waste time at work playing farmville, also allows for another million to be food insecure or not have heating in their house.
It's this fallacy that the system makes it so anyone who works hard and has a brilliant mind is gonna be a billionaire, JUST LIKE ZUCKERBERG! It's bullshit.
I'm not sure there's an answer I can give you that will be satisfactory.
Basically, the place is in chaos. Was under Communist rule until 1991. They (yeah, big gov't peeps) completely raped the place for decades. Talking genocide, nationalization, the whole nine yards. What we're seeing now is essentially the left-overs of that.
Even nowadays though, there are tons of governments trying to claim their stake there. Basically a bunch of local tribes trying to overthrow the government for one reason or another. Those tribes are exclusively sponsored by foreign governments, that's where they get their weapons from. Anywhere from Sudan sponsoring extremist Muslim tribes to establish Somalia as a Muslim country, to neighboring governments vying for more land, even to NATO and the US sponsoring certain sects for their own interests.
Not to mention natural resources that all these groups are after.
It's a mess. A huge mess.
And definitely not an example of Anarchy in the slightest. You have government intervention in every way imaginable. The worst kind too, violent government intervention.
And it's still worth noting that since the Communist regime collapsed back in '91, their death toll dropped significantly. I believe in 2010-2011 Mexico is now the most violent place on earth for that stuff. Somalia doesn't star as the top "Welcome to the Thunderdome" place for a while now.
What I don't get about your opposition to what I'm saying, is how are you combining Anarcho-Syndaclism with Big Government ideology? Unless you're trying to use Big Government to transition into Anarcho-Syndcalism.
Because there is no way on earth to harbor in a golden age of anarcho syndicalism through the 2012 election, but in the current climate it *is* possible to copy the capitalism bandaids that europe, scandinavia, canada, have managed to vastly improve the lives of the lower class. There just needs to be incredibly heavy political pressure.
No improvements are gonna come from a Ron Paul presidency except for those 1%.
actually they kinda do... the somalian (and largely, african governments as a whole) are not only insanely wealthy, but also greedy and violently opposed to giving up power.
honestly, if the governments of africa sorted their shit out, there wouldn't be any need for "feed le starving africaaaan" adverts.
This doesn't belong in the thread, but Africa's problems lay squarely at the feet of the US and Europe, for raping the shit out of their resources, manpower (remember that slavery thing?) colonialism, and allowing foreign nationals (this means rich white westerners) to still profit off all the natural resources there. If you don't know about the history of Africa, specifically colonialism, you have no authority to offer an opinion on the matter.
So, it looks like Obama is going to sacrifice Sarbanes-Oxley in order to get his shitty jobs bill passed (it's shitty cause it's mostly just tax breaks). SOX passed after Enron and was already a weak-sauce regulation designed to prevent implosion like Enron. How anyone could think what we need now is *less* regulations on insanely large companies is beyond me, but he's shown himself to be a puppet of the 1%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes%E2%80%93Oxley_Act
but i'll leave you to it, ben. you seem to have a way of, well... how can i put it:
people with ideas are great, because an idea can change, and be moulded, and grow into something incredible.
people with beliefs are stupid, because people will usually do nothing but fight and die for there beliefs no matter how wrong they are.
you fall into one of those catagories.
Source please.
Social Security is no longer able to sustain itself. It is giving out more than it's taking in. I'm 21. By the time I'm old enough to take advantage of it, it will be gone. AH, but that's not the case, because to cover for this, the government will just either borrow more money, or print more fake money at the federal reserve. You need to start worrying more about the economy if we're not willing to make the cuts.
Ron Paul also said when he was in the medical field in the 50's, when there was no social security, they never turned people away from hospitals like they do now. They also didn't turn people away from churches at the time.
It was easier to see a doctor then than it is now.
We have to become self-reliant out of necessity, because the government is about to crash from their overspending and pure ignorance. All those government benefits are about to completely disappear in the next couple of years.
This is completely incorrect. SS is solvent til 2040, and would be solvent indefinitely with the payroll cap removed so that people making over 110k a year were paying more.
If you want to argue that it won't be around by the time you're retirement age, I won't argue with that cause I see it being attacked by Ds and Rs, and I see the writing on the wall, but the only reason it will be gone is because political attacks and destruction, not because it is running out of money.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/tea-party-debate-audience-cheered-idea-of-letting-uninsured-patients-die/
Nice try, but I watched this debate. Ron Paul was explaining what RexM just described, and when the debate moderator tried to attack Paul by putting words in his mouth, a few audience members yelled out, "let him die!". There was actually a post-debate interview where Ron Paul commented on being disgusted by their behavior. I'll edit this post when I find it.
And where are we getting the money? We're broke. We're only staying afloat because of the constant printing of money out of thin air by the fed, and the borrowing of money that gets us further and further into debt. We need to make cuts, and neither side wants to. The only candidate who is offering to make the cuts is Ron Paul.
We can cut 100% of the programs and we will still be in massive debt.
Cuts aren't going to solve anything. All that will do is slow it down while reducing public services. What you're suggesting would be like cutting the head off of a hydra. It will just grow more heads. What should be done is for the president to sign an executive order taking away the Fed's ability to create money and put it in the hands of the Treasury, now and forever. Then they should phase out Federal Reserve Notes and replace them with US Treasury Notes that are created without interest attached to them. They would also have to nationalize the banks because there would be no profit in a sustainable banking system.