Politics The Marginalization of Ron Paul (or How Media Plays Favorites)

I think America could be great again if we get rid of our current government and replace it will a much smaller version.

 

there are a lot of people who make bad financial decisions. no one is questioning that. when you grow up in a poor environment, chances are you aren't learning sound economic principles to live your life by. it's why people born into poor families tend to stay poor.

 

I live in Colorado. You don't break your leg slipping on ice crossing the street. Bruise your bum maybe.
--- merged: Oct 13, 2011 4:16 PM ---

I don't believe in socialist policies. I believe in personal freedom, just like our founding fathers. I don't want to pay for the country's health care, I will pay for me and my own, that's it. And if you want something, you pay for and don't ask me to.

 

Now you're just being silly
--- merged: Oct 13, 2011 4:18 PM ---

You must be besides yourself with all the things you get to use and enjoy that other people pay for. Roads, hospitals, schools, power grids.....how can you even live with yourself? The guilt must be crushing

 

I don't mind chipping in for these things in Colorado, where I reside, not at all. I don't want to be forced to pay for them though. I don't think anyone should be forced to pay taxes under the penalty of imprisonment. If a State's residents don't want to maintain their roads, hospitals, schools and power grids, that's their own prerogative in a free country. But the State system works pretty well, when the federal government doesn't stick their big nose in.
--- merged: Oct 13, 2011 4:28 PM ---

While infringing on my personal freedom? No thanks. 'Give me liberty or give me death.'

 

Your idea of liberty is different than mine.
--- merged: Oct 13, 2011 4:38 PM ---
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783

 

OK, let's say the guy earning 100K spends twice as much on food as the guy on 20K. He still pays around 10% tax compared to the poor guy's 25%. Please note that I haven't even taken your example of 500K.. which would demonstrate the effect even more effectively.

How much more can he consume?

Also, I don't know where in the USA you live, but many parts I visit don't have public transport worth the name. Anway, who would provide that in a rural area?

As far as healthcare is concerned, can you explain why the American way is more expensive than anywhere else (per capita), less effective and excludes so many people?

I can. Dogma.

 

You pay for what you consume, just like everyone else...that's the way it should be.

And I will reiterate; car pool.

Why is America's health care system more expensive than anywhere else? Because you get you what you pay for.

 

So, do you believe their should be any taxes? What should they pay for? What do you do if the poorest can't pay the highest burden (which I have demonstrated that the would in your sales tax scheme, but which doesn't interest you.

As far as car pooling is concerned, have you ever lived in a rural area (as in, most of the USA)? It isn't feasible.

Regarding health care, you clearly don't get what you pay for. You neglected to explain why the USA outcomes are worse than elsewhere in the Western World (life expectancy, child mortality ...).

I think you need to research these things a bit. The math doesn't work.

 

Why is the Libertarian definition of "freedom" or "liberty" always end up being "the freedom to be a selfish prick who doesn't give two shits about his fellow man"?

 

The planted idea that the US Healthcare system is the best in the world is a flat out fallacy - not supported by real data. I could show you that data - it's not difficult to find but 1) I don't think you'd look at it and 2) I find it a senseless waste of my time to try and steer you from your circular, dead end view. You are obviously happy in your ignorance.

Oh hell, on the off chance you might be interested:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/23/us-usa-healthcare-last-idUSTRE65M0SU20100623
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Pub...omparative-Performance-of-American-Healt.aspx



Of course, your circular view of life in general will inevitably lead you to the conclusion that data such as this is made up. You will then go on to rant over the fact that these sorts of studies are a waste of your precious tax dollars - because that's the only way to fit it into your closed system.

 

Eddie:

You still havent explained how Ron Paul's tax policy would work.

Eliminate all income tax -- 40% of federal revenue.
Phase out Social Security and Medicare -- another 40% of revenue

So you have 20% of the current budget revenue remaining -- 6% for interest on the debt and lets say 10% for defense (half of the current expenditures) and 4% rest for everything else. That is not reducing the federal budget, it is eliminating the federal role completely.

One obvious result, significant increases in state income taxes, state/local sales taxes, local property taxes, etc. to fund those basic services that you and Paul deem not in the federal purview. Someone has to pay, dude.

And of course, programs like environmental protection, infrastructure, etc would then have to rely on the hope that state policies are consistent and adequately funded (more state taxes). Hell, you dont want truckers who are at the backbone of the economy to have a greater transportation system in one state, then cross the border and face roads that are undriveable. On the environment side, do you really think water and ear pollution respect state borders, so that a state that chooses not to impose or enforce regulations will not adversely impact neighboring states?

But now back to the federal budget. Now that you killed Medicare, where do you suggest seniors on a fixed retirement income should get their health care? Who will offer them affordable health insurance? Certainly not the free market private sector who would never make such a poor business decision of providing affordable coverage to the most expensive, highest risk consumers.

Or maybe its....fuck the seniors. They're on their own - thats the libertarian way!

 

Ron Paul's libertarianism is carrot on a stick appealing to the greedy, selfish, intolerant, and self-centered individualists and isolationists who will follow it and him blindly without regard to the disruptive consequences such radical policies will mean to 21st century American society.

The carrot is a ways to a means. But the carrot looks nothing like the means (does it ever?).

Maybe the means is an empty hole in the middle of a desert for all his followers to fall into.

Maybe it's the ocean they walk into and drown.

Maybe they beach themselves like whales on the shore.

Where do they go when Ron Paul's utopia is revealed for what it really is - an empty and out-dated dream for a by-gone era?

Ron Paul knows there is nothing at the end of his carrot. It's only those in line behind his carrot who don't.

 

Both of my parents are seniors. My dad is 77 and my mom is 68. They will never be on their own as long as they have their family. And that's the way it should be. But it's not my job to take care of someone else's elderly parents. And if the people get to keep the money that would otherwise go towards taxes, that's more money to contribute to the final years of their elderly family members.

 

The issue is not whether seniors pay for their own health care or their family pay for it, but rather the availability of affordable health care for seniors in your "free market" recognizing that they are the highest risk group and the least insurable (i.e. not profitable for private insurers) of all consumers.

And given that taxes are the lowest they have been for 50 years and the fact that you cant eliminate many government services, but simply transfer them from the federal level to 50 disparate state programs that may or may not be equally responsive, there will not be that much more money for a family to provide a safety net or contribute to the needs of their parents, and of course the greater burden will be on the working poor, with the least disposable income having to take on these additional responsibilities .

Its a pipe dream and fuzzy math.

 

As long as I live, I'll never understand those who seem devoid of all consideration for their fellow man. I'm not a Christian. In fact, I'm not at all religious. I'm an agnostic and a humanist, I guess. I've been accused by Christians of having no morality, by default. But I'm as moral a person as any who profess morality under the umbrella of punishment/reward by a creator. I may not have much but I have compassion for my fellow humans and can't bear to imagine a world where, if I were dead or financially unable to take care of my elderly mother or one of my sick children or if any family member were unable to care for another family member, that they would simply be kicked to the curb by soulless, sociopathic, foot dragging, gene splices like you. There, I said it.

This will probably get deleted.