Ron Paul 08

Post Reply New Topic

Jeezus, there are worse things than communism. Try ultra-capitalism. I would much prefer total income equality than severe inequality and wage slavery. Only the rich love a society such as that.

The answer is a fair capitalist system, with public services elements which give everyone a fair chance based on their ability, and an equal chance of recieving state healthcare. People should also be supported if they are unable to work, until such a time where they can. I have heard stories of people losing everything because they are injured/ill. Is this really how a good society treats its vulnerable and disabled?
If a person didn't try at school, and can only get a low paying job due to their own lack of ability, or is just too incompetent, nasty, has too many children, or for some other self-inflicted reason they don't have the capacity to do work, then by all means, they should only have a very minimal welfare payment, which doesn't satisfy them, but at the same time doesn't mean that they'll starve altogether. Housing, well, they deserve no more than some tax-free ghetto, which is not a pleasant place to live. But that's all they'll be able to afford, due to their own stupid choices.

There should be a government job agency in every town and city, and at the same time everyone with sufficient ability should be able to find a job. Either through a business or government scheme.
At the same time, taxes should be proportionate and fair.

One thing the communists were good for: fighting against the fascists, who were much worse!

I don't see that. When I go to an Irish pub or the Scottish Highland games, white people are celebrating their cultural pride. When I go to a Greek Orthodox Church with friends, I see people celebrating their white, European cultural and religious heritage. When I go to the Scandinavian-American Society Christmas party, it is held in a banquet hall rented at a public college - no hassles, no protests. White people are continually expressing pride in their cultures, and no one complains about that.

ALL of the groups that I have encountered that use the term 'white pride' have been racist organizations. While the term white pride is not inherently bad, it has been appropriated by the KKK, the nazis, and similar groups. It is like the swastika, which was long used as symbol in India and Scandinavia. In the wake of Hitler, if someone uses a swastika, it will generate controversy, even if they are not using it in racist ways. That is just the way it is, deal with it.

Feel free to disagree with various positions taken by the NAACP - I don't agree with them 100%. But I recognize that they were created in response to specific actions taken against their community, and I do not consider them racist.

The Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam, and other extremist groups in the black community are clearly racist, and most people reject that nonsense.

Black Panthers aren't a racist organization, although I'm sure a few members have been racist, those are most likely the ones who formed the New Black Panthers, who are racist. The original Black Panthers aren't racist, the New Black Panthers are.
Most of the gangs are also divided along the lines of race, whites have the aryan nation, blacks have kryps/bloods, and latinos have MS13, Latin Kings. And for the most part theyr all race specific.

Yeah, surprisingly they still allow specific cultures of white people to have pride, but not white people as a whole. "Slavic Pride!" is A-OK in their book still, but "White Pride!" is racist. Blacks can still have pride for their whole race, so why can't we?
Also, the NAACP may not be racist, but their glorious leader, Jesse Jackson, sure as hell is.

money makes money

If you had chickens would you consider the breeders worthless if you didn't eat them ?

the blue collar mentality is what's wrong with people, they think like blue collar people instead of rich people, think like a wealthy person and built net worth

Ron Paul knows the lack of savings in this country is a major problem when we are borrowing money around the globe, that means we are paying everyone interest and bleeding money. Plus the import product is sold here nearly tax free while domestic products are inflated by payroll taxes being rolled into their cost of production. That also makes selling our products around the world harder to do.

When i first heard about it I was bent, like hey i paid income tax on the money I saved, so why should i pay a consumption tax when I spend it, than I read product prices would fall if the payroll taxes the people making the stuff weren't rolled into the shelf price, so it would be a wash on stuff Made In The USA.

i would sooner have a thriving economy than get killed by some battered american who had given up hope on ever having anything because of the current economic situation in the country. the only reason we can't compete in the global economy and are getting wasted is because of the nations tax system punishing domestic production and favoring imports.

We have the worlds most efficant transportation system, people from Japan used to come here in the 80's an drool wishing they could move stuff like we can, it gives us a huge advantage over other countries. There is also room to do even better lowering the cost further per ton mile.

Ultra-capitalism is a lot better of an idea that communism. I would prefer growth and progress over total income equality. I mean, why the heck should I be so freaking concerned over what everyone else makes that I would screw myself over??? Severe inequality isn't the largest of problems, and wage slavery is such a crapiful term that it doesn't even deserve to be uttered. Yes, you may depend on your wages, yes your job may suck, but guess what? It isn't slavery, and it is a hell of a lot better than many of the systems that have controlled human existence for thousands of years. Well, a lot of laissez-faire economists tend to like a society such as that too, and think it would be a better society for most. Just think about Milton Friedman, or Ludwig von Mises or some other person within their basic schools of thought.

Fair is also a bs term. Nobody can define fair properly, in fact, some have argued that one of the biggest reasons for the current political divide is a matter of fairness, which is why fair is a bs term. Nobody says "I want a system that is completely unfair". Everyone makes their system completely fair from their perspective, where everyone gets what they deserve to get. Who defines the good society anyway? Why do we make society the same as the government? How many laws and interventions would have to run our new good society? Heck, nobody can even agree on the good society, but really, the current push for the religious right is to make our society the "good society" as you seem to be using the term. They merely disagree with your morality.
Right, and by herding them all into a tax free ghetto, we make it all the more ghettoish... but anyway....

Yes, they should, which is really a matter of having a good economy more so than anything else. One does not create jobs out of thin air, one merely takes money that would create jobs elsewhere and creates jobs where one wants them. Also, who really wants unfair taxes with no sense of proportion? There is a lot of loaded terminology, without definition, and a lot of moralistic claims without regard for other moral philosophies. In short, I entirely disagree with you.

For Ron Paul's and Hunter's exclusion..

State GOP withdraws as FOX debate partner!


http://www.boston.com/news/local/politi ... ps_sp.html

Happy Happy Joy Joy

I was once working for McDonald's and Wal-Mart at the same time... I was barely able to afford rent at the cheapest motel around and if it weren't for the fact I got a free meal each time I worked at McDonald's I would have almost gone hungry.

I say that it would be nice if the poor didn't have to pay taxes; someone who makes $7,000 gross annually shouldn't have to have 1,750 taken from them, especially up front so they have less money when they need it.

Sorry you had to live like that. However, there's no sales tax on necessities such as rent, food, clothing, and medicine. I'm sure Ron Paul will keep it that way with a national sales tax. People who are poor enough that they can only afford necessities wouldn't pay any taxes. Currently, the poor pay a 15.3% flat tax (although only 7.65% is reported on pay stubs) for social security and medicare and I believe those taxes would be eliminated. Therefore, I think a sales tax would help the poor.

Whether you plan to vote for Ron Paul or not, don't you think he is drawing enough support that he should be included in the debates?? I do.

Of course you would disagree with me. I actually have some form of morality(not that you don't claim to have your own set of morals, namely measured in units of currency), and would claim that it is superior to certain other moral systems, whilst realistic. It extends far beyond the topic at hand, however. For another thread.

Yes, economic growth is good so long as it's going the right way, and decent, hard working people aren't living on subsistence wages, just enough to scrape by on. I believe that we can agree that we would both prefer a regulated capitalist system to communism, but I would prefer communism to an ultra-capitalist/libertarian system where billionaires are the new feudal lords.

Economic growth is nothing without freedom, justice, and a majority sense of well being. Who enjoys that growth except the rich? Sure, the middle classes may often make up the majority in developed nations, but if you fall ill, your company goes bust, or you are disabled, then SCREW YOU! YOUR CORPORATE MASTERS DO NOT CARE ONE BIT! Disabled and elderly, maybe charities, but unemployed, hahahaha!
Essentially, corporate leaders would hold the seats of power in an ultra-capitalist system. America is not an ultra-capitalist nation, even if the medical system is privatised, it still has many state services. UK, even better, but a little bit too far, I'd say. Especially with New Labour's excessive welfare and politicized mini-schemes. Taxes are heavy in almost all places. And people can actually live comfortably on the dole!

Technically, every individual has some form of morality, however, you don't have much ability to prove that your moral system is superior simply because morality proves itself. However, I think that some elements of it will fail at the implementation.

Actually, I disagree. I would prefer ultra-capitalism because of the potential for bad regulations and perhaps a hatred of most regulating mechanisms. Really though, how much economic growth goes perfectly the right way and how much goes perfectly the wrong way? I see neither going on. You haven't proven that strong capitalism will lead to such a strong hierarchicalism or that communism would avoid it. I mean, for simplicity's sake, I am assuming you mean pure socialism rather than the ill defined concept of communism.

Ok, how do we define freedom, justice, and what measure do we use for well being? Do we measure well being at the instant of measurement or in the long run? Justice is a poorly defined concept that I don't think will be provided by any government, however, freedom and well being would be supported by stronger capitalism in my opinion. In the long run, everyone enjoys growth. Ok, and if one is absolutely free then one is absolutely responsible for their own well-being. That is how it typically works. Frankly, corporations don't exist to help people, they exist to make mutually profitable trades. These trades help people, but they are not organizations of altruism and should not be confused with such.

Well, somebody will hold power no matter what system. If we say that power has seats then the leaders of the most popular organizations will have control, especially the more we try to remove power from government, which is a wise choice in a liberal society as to try to put power in impersonal organizations as opposed to more personal ones. America isn't ultra-capitalist and its privatization is a painful sham of one. If it were more private then we would be better, or even if it were more public.

Actually, the middle class is beginning to disappear, and fall into poverty. We'll have a depression within this year or next.

Please cite that piece of information.
I know in New Jersey we are simply losing our middle class due to the fact that it is not a hospitable place for them.

Just to clarify...
Ron Paul doesn't want to replace the income tax with a consumption tax- that's Huckabee's plan. Paul just want to get rid of the income tax entirely. That helps EVERYONE. It may help the rich more than the poor, but it still helps the poor quite a bit. No income tax means that most people have more money and the prices of most goods drop. How is that bad for the poor? Paul also wants to cut back on other taxes, as they are getting excessively high. Less taxation=more economic growth=overall increase in the standard of living. Paul isn't a corporatist like Bush is, he wants to help the average person. Unlike other politicians, he's not going to play to corporate interests, so the power of mega-corporations would likely DECLINE as a result of his intended policies. And aside from his economics, you've gotta love his foreign policy. Leave them alone, odds are they'll leave us alone. Canada hasn't had any terrorist attacks because they don't go around overthrowing democratically elected leaders in other countries (Mexico in 1914 and Iran in 1953 are the first examples that come to mind).