Quote:
|
Originally Posted by samcol
What is the better choice, a gradual removal of the fractional reserve or a never ending life of despotism with the federal reserve that no amount of social welfare programs can ever cure?
There is no doubt removing the Fed will definetly cause rocky economic times, but how is that worse than a complete crash that seems inevitable? Ron Paul's plan is to remove the Fed gradually as well mandatory participation in social programs. Abrubtly ending both instantly would be nothing more than a government manufactured crash rather than the assured crash that is coming.
I don't see how me being able to spend or save more of my money as a bad thing. I can't help it if someone doesn't practice sound personal financing, but if we let the government handle it we are all stuck. I have little faith in them getting us benefits or saving us in a crisis. Social Security has been robbed and FEMA's track record is horrible (New Orleans anyone?). The people running the show have proved time and time again that they cannot handle our money properly.
|
This is ridiculous. Are you listening to yourself? Do you even read what you type? This is no worse than the Bush idealists, who rationalize everything. The federal reserve causes despotism? Without it, it would be nearly impossible to buy a house.
With all the elderly, around 80% of whom vote, your candidate won't win when he talks about getting rid of social security.
Also, you're equating an EXECUTIVE issue with a monetary one. FEMA is doing terrible because the President hired someone incompetent to run it. The EPA is too influenced by industry. This is a problem with our leadership. You think letting the states handle these issues would fix the problem? If anything, it would be worse.
Then there's the multitude of things we need to fund with the Federal Government which have been listed in this thread many times.
The only people behind Ron Paul are idiot techies on the internet who don't really know how to run a government, and people who are unequivocally against the war to the point where it is their central issue. And just because they're spendthrifts when Ron Paul asks for money doesn't mean he's a remotely good candidate.
I have respect for him because he sticks to his guns, but I won't be supporting him. Though as far as the Republican candidates go, he's the best on their roster.