Ron Paul - Will Americans Support Him? [Archive]

Gilby

2007-09-27, 05:54 AM

Ron Paul - Will Americans Support Him?

I sure hope so. And from what I've seen, he has the support from those that have looked into him. The challenge is getting the name out there so people know who he is and will look into him. The mainstream media ignores him so his name doesn't get out there much. When you see a candidate that wants to reinstate freedom simply by adhering strictly to the constitution, and has an impecable 30 year history to back up that position, you have to hop onboard. I've been actively supporting Ron Paul and he is the only candidate that has an active following at political events. I've never considered being involved with politics before.

Get rid of income taxes, but then offer tax refunds to parents who homeschool? Sounds like he plans on breaking one of those promises... Getting rid of income taxes means a 100% tax credit. :) I noticed that inconsistency too, and I can only guess that any tax credit would be a transition period to no taxes. The unfortunate reality is that many people are dependent on the state, so you can't just cut everything at once.

Hm, take less, spend more, don't print money. Kindof doesn't work in my head.
That's take less, spend less, and don't print.

I'm a HUGE supporter of a universal healcare system that works (it's not as hard as you imagine).
Socialism doesn't work.

Most of the western world has been able to pull it off, so why can't we? No, they haven't. There are tons of horror stories in those socialized countries. Long wait times and death from waiting. Further, with the US being the last to socialize, innovation, driven by the profit motive, will cease. Health care quality will go down.

I mean, if I broke my leg unicycling, I would not be able to have it fixed. I'd have to just live with it for a while because I have no insurance and no money. He would call it Health Freedom. I'm making a personal choice to have no money and no insurance. He wants me to have the right to have no other options than to work for two weeks on a broken leg until I get my paycheck. Your view of the world is pretty grim. Back before the government destroyed health care in the US, you would've been able to walk into one of many charitable organizations and get it taken care of for no cost to you. Humans are very compassionate people and will support charities, plus, I bet you will remember the free treatment you got and choose to donate at some later date to that charity when you have the means.

Also, his whole idea of "American Independance" is foolish. We rely more on the international community than he seems to think.
You don't understand what that means then. It means not letting the UN write our laws and not allowing incorrectly named "free trade" agreements force managed trade on us. We don't need agreements with other nations to have free trade. Just allow it to be free and let it be.

His foreign policy is to not have entangling alliances with any nation, and to be friends and trade will all nations.

GILD

2007-09-27, 02:38 PM

Re-establishing the gold-standard is an interesting discussion.
Getting rid of the I.R.A, I mean S., is a move that will probably get him not-elected at best, killed at worst.
But anti-abortion?
Bizarre.

James_Potter

2007-09-27, 02:38 PM

Gilby

2007-09-27, 03:04 PM

But anti-abortion?
Bizarre.

He's an OB/GYN by trade and that has shaped his personal views on that.

Pro-choice people can come to grips with it in that his position is that it should be left up to the States to deal with, just like murder and most other violent acts are.

Gilby

2007-09-27, 03:04 PM

I actually really like Ron Paul a lot, even though he's a Republican and I normally don't identify as such...probably because he has a more typically Libertarian idea about how the government should be run, whichI think is sweet.

The system is set up as a two party system, with laws making it impossible for third party candidates to get anywhere, so you have to choose one of them to run for, unless you are rich like Ross Perot. Do you choose the fascist party (Republicans) or the communist party (Democrats)? Always a tough choice.

sockmonster

2007-09-27, 03:26 PM

Socialism doesn't work.

Yeah, there are horror stories of people dying while waiting for treatment. That's no different than the US. In fact, it's more prevalent in the United States than in Europe. There is no reason the quality of healthcare has to diminish. If you remove the insurance companies from the equation, and their truly horrifying profit margins, you can provide quality healthcare at no cost while still generously compensating healthcare workers.

Without taxing them to death, mind you.
It's attainable, it's realistic, and it's an absolute necessity

James_Potter

2007-09-27, 03:27 PM

The system is set up as a two party system, with laws making it impossible for third party candidates to get anywhere, so you have to choose one of them to run for, unless you are rich like Ross Perot. Do you choose the fascist party (Republicans) or the communist party (Democrats)? Always a tough choice.
Exactly...and unfortunately many Americans don't know enough about the specifics of politics to know which one they actually think would do a better job, and only vote for the candidate of whichever party they happen to consider themselves.

wobbling bear

2007-09-27, 03:41 PM

Hey what about ideas of future TV ads in a "Paulista" future?

I'll start:

" discovering there is not enough gold in the galaxy to match goods and services?
then go to Barter.com!
Barter.com the best deal you can get for your goods!
until november 1rst our special discount: two sacks of grain for your stone ax!":D

sockmonster

2007-09-27, 04:11 PM

Hey what about ideas of future TV ads in a "Paulista" future?

"Now available on Barter.com, special 'signature' edition Ron Paul globes and world maps! Featuring the United States and NOTHING ELSE. Great for schools which no longer receive public funding.

Hey, it's that or nothing, right? BARTER.COM!"

maestro8

2007-09-27, 04:17 PM

I actually really like Ron Paul a lot, even though he's a Republican
Don't compare him to the "Republicans" in office today. To me Ron Paul seems more like a true less-gov't more-individual-freedom Republican than any of the kooks in Washington.

What happened to the party platform?

Gilby

2007-09-27, 04:56 PM

Yeah, there are horror stories of people dying while waiting for treatment. That's no different than the US. In fact, it's more prevalent in the United States than in Europe. What's your source of this "fact"?
There is no reason the quality of healthcare has to diminish. Cool, I can't wait for my FEMA run healthcare.
If you remove the insurance companies from the equation, and their truly horrifying profit margins, 3.9% profit margin. Horrible! How could they.

The high cost today is from the patient not being the payer (who therefore does not care about the cost).
you can provide quality healthcare at no cost while still generously compensating healthcare workers.
No cost? Where's the compensation come from? Your math doesn't seem to add up.

Without taxing them to death, mind you.
No death or taxes! That's basically Ron Paul's platform, eliminate the income tax, and eliminate the warfare state.

Gilby

2007-09-27, 05:00 PM

" discovering there is not enough gold in the galaxy to match goods and services?
then go to Barter.com!
Barter.com the best deal you can get for your goods!
until november 1rst our special discount: two sacks of grain for your stone ax!":D It's amazing how most people think that gold limits the economy. It does not. One's own production capabilities and all raw materials limits the economy. Gold is just a medium of exchange and one of many assets one can have to save for future needs and wants. Do you hold all your assets in cash? I would hope not.

Gilby

2007-09-27, 05:08 PM

"Now available on Barter.com, special 'signature' edition Ron Paul globes and world maps! Featuring the United States and NOTHING ELSE. Great for schools which no longer receive public funding.

Hey, it's that or nothing, right? BARTER.COM!"
A map with just the US on it. At the rate we are going with our imperialism, that's the way we are heading. Ron Paul wants to change that.

Why do people associate not meddling in the affairs of other nations and going to war against them as being isolationist? If we alienate everyone, isn't that isolationist? Trading and being friendly with other nations would be a much more open and international policy.

What you and your local community do for your local school is up to you, not the federal government. Don't you want control over your own community's school?

jack-y

2007-09-27, 06:16 PM

I agree with him on some things but am totally against him other things.

He's seems like a regular pre-W. Bush conservative. After Dubya, anybody looks like a good candidate.

Gilby

2007-09-27, 06:47 PM

He's seems like a regular pre-W. Bush conservative.
I wish the pre-W conservatives were like Ron Paul. They may have had the rhetoric, but their actions were nothing like it.

After Dubya, anybody looks like a good candidate.
All the other republicans are Dubya imitations. On the other side, the only peace candidates are Gravel and Kucinich.

monkeyman

2007-09-27, 08:22 PM

It's amazing how most people think that gold limits the economy. It does not. One's own production capabilities and all raw materials limits the economy. Gold is just a medium of exchange and one of many assets one can have to save for future needs and wants. Do you hold all your assets in cash? I would hope not.

Ok, I think your argument finally just clicked for me. Are you basically saying that the worth of things/money is backed in gold, but other things can be used as currency? It seems so simple, but for some reason I wasn't grasping it until now. I feel mildly dumb.

This gold standard is one of the main reasons I'm hesitant on Ron Paul, mainly because I don't fully understand it.

feel the light

2007-09-27, 09:08 PM

Well, actually it's a public to stupid to realize they are being stripped naked by war profiteers. But maybe the next election will fix that. Leaving us with the debt (close to 700 bil just for Iraq so far ). We are many trillions in the red.
Getting rid of the income tax will cut gov income income tremendously. It will need to be replaced with a consumption (sales tax).Switching to gold and silver currency will cause deflation (it always has in the past, more goods and people bidding with a fixed money supply raises the value of the gold). The last periods where we had deflation was in the early 1930's, and the 1890's. Both periods of great suffering, mass unemployment, and greatly reduced consumption. This will greatly reduce gov income from sales tax, now at both a federal and state level.
I could see this leading to a point where the gov income will be less then needed to cover the interest on the debt. So all government programs will be ended. We end Medicaid, food stamps, and SS, shortly before we default on the interest payments of the government backed bonds that pay for private pensions and annuities.:eek: Everyone defaults on their mortgages, and the banks get all the land.
Conversely, inflation makes both personal and government debt cheaper to pay off. I am not recommending 100% inflation, but as a worst case scenario, it chops, in real terms, all government debt and mortgages in half.
You know what Gilby, I think you have done the impossible. I figured I would end up voting for Hill Dog in the big election, holding my nose and dreading it. Suddenly I am glad that the country looks well on track to Clinton 2. You have convinced me that things could indeed be much, much worse. I suddenly feel so rich that I don't have to watch my neighbors starve to death while I guard my vegetable patch all day clutching a shotgun.

GILD

2007-09-27, 09:32 PM

It's amazing how most people think that gold limits the economy. It does not.
It may not limit but it does inhibit.
Especially fast-growing economies.
The central bank will not be able to get additional money supply into a growing economy fast enough if they have to back it with gold first.
It's quicker and more immediate if they can 'just' print it. (Obviously with proper inflation-targets in place, blah-blah-blah)

This is one of the main arguments against the gold standard.
From a (hopefully even faster) developing country's point of view anyway.

maestro8

2007-09-27, 09:36 PM

Getting rid of the income tax will cut gov income income tremendously.
You say that as if it's a bad thing. Why don't we cut out a layer or two of middle-management in the gov't at the same time... and a few three-letter agencies while we're at it... and we might come out ahead!

I could see this leading to a point where the gov income will be less then needed to cover the interest on the debt.
Okay, that's a very cynical view, but how about seeing things leading to a point where the debt becomes less than anything we'd need to worry about. If we begin our cuts by offing the IRS, DEA, ATF and a few others, pay off the debt, then cut income taxes, we're home free, no?

Gilby

2007-09-27, 10:48 PM

Ok, I think your argument finally just clicked for me. Are you basically saying that the worth of things/money is backed in gold, but other things can be used as currency? It seems so simple, but for some reason I wasn't grasping it until now. I feel mildly dumb.
The worth of something is denominated in gold. Just like right now if I go to Europe, I'd pay something in euros with my debit/credit card, but I don't have euros in my account, so dollars are taken from my account and exchanged on the market for the currency they accept, the euro.

It could be anything. Let's say I have a brokerage account, hook my credit card to that and when I make a purchase it could trade a share of stock (or any other equitable asset) for whatever asset the seller wants. None of us may need gold as an asset and therefore the actual transaction may not include gold, but the purchase could be denominated in gold since that's the commonly known unit of value.

For transactions that are not electronic, using coins and warehouse receipts would be common. The reason gold and silver became common is because they were easy to coin in specific massed and they have a lot of value for a small amount. The value of the metal is based on what it can be used for, and the demand for it's use, just like the value of gasoline has a value based on it's supply and demand.

The central bank will not be able to get additional money supply into a growing economy fast enough if they have to back it with gold first. We are talking about getting rid of the central bank. At least in this country, the governments do not have the power to issue paper money. They can only coin money.

If the economy is growing fast, that means the supply of equitable assets is growing fast as well.

Gilby

2007-09-27, 11:31 PM

The biggest problem with the US now is the gov debt
And when you have a system of money that is solely backed by debt, what do you think the incentives are?

Getting rid of the income tax will cut gov income income tremendously. It will need to be replaced with a consumption (sales tax).
If we bring the troops home and reduce other spending. We can reduce the spending. If we reduce spending to the levels we had in 2000, we could eliminate the income tax.

Switching to gold and silver currency will cause deflation (it always has in the past, more goods and people bidding with a fixed money supply raises the value of the gold). The last periods where we had deflation was in the early 1930's, and the 1890's.
Technically, the buying power of gold increasing isn't deflation. It's simply appreciation. A deflation can only occur as the result of an inflation and it occurs with paper money. You print more money than you have the gold to back it and you get inflation. Then when you take those extra notes out of circulation, you get deflation, and many people that are screwed because they couldn't get anything for their notes. That is the common trend in all the depressions.

So all government programs will be ended.
Cool. Those things you listed aren't constitutional anyways. What you need to grasp is that the federal governments main purpose is to protect our liberties from foreign threats. The states handle the rest. You want socialism? Keep it in your state and let people move to their preferred states. Though do your socialism without infringing on the life, liberty, or property or others.

Conversely, inflation makes both personal and government debt cheaper to pay off.
Well, not really. The new credit bids up the prices for the assets being purchased, so the loan rate may be low, but the price is higher, which means you're actually paying about the same depending on when you get in the market. The market assumes the same rate of inflation for this.

I am not recommending 100% inflation, but as a worst case scenario, it chops, in real terms, all government debt and mortgages in half. Hyperinflation would do that.
You know what Gilby, I think you have done the impossible. I figured I would end up voting for Hill Dog in the big election, holding my nose and dreading it. Suddenly I am glad that the country looks well on track to Clinton 2. You have convinced me that things could indeed be much, much worse. I suddenly feel so rich that I don't have to watch my neighbors starve to death while I guard my vegetable patch all day clutching a shotgun. I hope we don't have to see Clinton 2 bring that to us. We need someone who understands how money works to be in office when the the money system can no longer be sustained. I hope it doesn't happen with Bush still in office.

feel the light

2007-09-28, 05:42 AM

So the gov abolishes the IRS and the Fed. We declare our dollar wealth no longer legal tender. Legal transactions will be expressed in fixed amounts of gold and silver, copper. Only hard currency will be issued.

1. Our gov just lost it's job of collecting taxes. We can't tax barter. And we just declared our paper currency worthless. Plus we are 5 or 6 trillion dollars in debt. Can we just totally default and say STFU to everyone in the world who is owed money by the USA. ? Maybe, we have lot's of Nuke's, and are good at telling other countries to STFU. Let's say Paul says, "Go for it, we must be free of paper money" !

2. Where do we get all the metal to make all these coins? We will need the equivalent of half a trillion dollars worth of metal, at least. Who can we buy it from? Our gov has no income, and we just declared that we will no longer print anymore money. Why would the world sell us gold when our money is worthless, we just lost our income, we just defaulted on 6 trillion dollars in debt? I bet the world will say to us, "no way you get any gold or credit from us dudes, cause you a broke crazy guy."

3 What if Kris wants to sell 1000 KH's in Europe. Does he have the right to demand they pay him in gold ? What does he do when they say no ? What if they still use fiat currency ? If we must continue to except their paper Euro in order to do business, what have we gained dumping the paper dollar ?

4 The gov's choice will be to back the dollars in circulation now, at some fixed exchange rate to the new gold dollar (metal from where ?), or abandon it. If we say we will exchange 2000 $ in paper dollars, for an oz of gold, we must continue to pay this gold for more then 30 years (as already issued bonds mature). What if we run out of gold ? We are trillions in debt now, and there is perhaps a few hundred billion in gold in the USA now at these prices. What if the world price of gold rises a great deal ?

5 What if the rest of the world doesn't elect hard coin Paulites ? They think he's crazy and act all Euro socialist on us, and go their own way. What if their fiat money economies continue the same path of exponential growth they have enjoyed for the last decades ? Yet we end up with a 3rd world rate of economic activity shared by other hard currency-barter economies ? Won't that make us their bitch ?

Transferring from our present paper money system to the gold dollar will pose more then a few problems. I think Paul is taking a page from the great Reagan's play book. Ron was big on the gold based dollar, and projecting a sense of old fashion common money logic. But once in office, he never mentioned it again.:)

Danni

2007-09-28, 05:59 AM

So the gov abolishes the IRS and the Fed. We declare our dollar wealth no longer legal tender. Legal transactions will be expressed in fixed amounts of gold and silver, copper. Only hard currency will be issued.

1. Our gov just lost it's job of collecting taxes. We can't tax barter. And we just declared our paper currency worthless. Plus we are 5 or 6 trillion dollars in debt. Can we just totally default and say STFU to everyone in the world who is owed money by the USA. ? Maybe, we have lot's of Nuke's, and are good at telling other countries to STFU. Let's say Paul says, "Go for it, we must be free of paper money" !

2. Where do we get all the metal to make all these coins? We will need the equivalent of half a trillion dollars worth of metal, at least. Who can we buy it from? Our gov has no income, and we just declared that we will no longer print anymore money. Why would the world sell us gold when our money is worthless, we just lost our income, we just defaulted on 6 trillion dollars in debt? I bet the world will say to us, "no way you get any gold or credit from us dudes, cause you a broke crazy guy."

3 What if Kris wants to sell 1000 KH's in Europe. Does he have the right to demand they pay him in gold ? What does he do when they say no ? What if they still use fiat currency ? If we must continue to except their paper Euro in order to do business, what have we gained dumping the paper dollar ?

4 The gov's choice will be to back the dollars in circulation now, at some fixed exchange rate to the new gold dollar (metal from where ?), or abandon it. If we say we will exchange 2000 $ in paper dollars, for an oz of gold, we must continue to pay this gold for more then 30 years (as already issued bonds mature). What if we run out of gold ? We are trillions in debt now, and there is perhaps a few hundred billion in gold in the USA now at these prices. What if the world price of gold rises a great deal ?

5 What if the rest of the world doesn't elect hard coin Paulites ? They think he's crazy and act all Euro socialist on us, and go their own way. What if their fiat money economies continue the same path of exponential growth they have enjoyed for the last decades ? Yet we end up with a 3rd world rate of economic activity shared by other hard currency-barter economies ? Won't that make us their bitch ?

Transferring from our present paper money system to the gold dollar will pose more then a few problems. I think Paul is taking a page from the great Reagan's play book. Ron was big on the gold based dollar, and projecting a sense of old fashion common money logic. But once in office, he never mentioned it again.:)

Sales taxes (including things coming in and out of the country) will pay towards the debt, which should be sufficient if he pulls out of Iraq, end homeland security (which is absolutely useless), etc. Basically he spends way way way less, and so doesn't need income taxes.

He is not going to make the money out of gold, but you can trade in your dollar if you wish for a fixed amount of gold. The money will still be transacted in paper form, but you can go to a government building and demand that your money be changed into gold. This stops the government from printing money (for if the value of the dollar goes down, people will demand their gold), and adds stability to the currency.

feel the light

2007-09-28, 06:41 AM

"He is not going to make the money out of gold, but you can trade in your dollar if you wish for a fixed amount of gold. The money will still be transacted in paper form, but you can go to a government building and demand that your money be changed into gold. This stops the government from printing money (for if the value of the dollar goes down, people will demand their gold), and adds stability to the currency." - Danni

So we set an exchange rate for the dollar, when we now are trillions in the red, and back this plan with the few billion in gold the gov owns now ? Is it not obvious that the gold will be gone in a few hours ? What would your next move be Danni ? You have cut some expenses from the budget, so what......you still have several trillion dollars in dollars and debt to convert to gold you don't have.

Next plan?

Borges

2007-09-28, 08:33 AM

It may not limit but it does inhibit.
Especially fast-growing economies.
The central bank will not be able to get additional money supply into a growing economy fast enough if they have to back it with gold first.
It's quicker and more immediate if they can 'just' print it. (Obviously with proper inflation-targets in place, blah-blah-blah)

This is one of the main arguments against the gold standard.
From a (hopefully even faster) developing country's point of view anyway.
You guys own the gold mines, you should be lobbying for this. :)

If you speed up the economy by printing more money than you have assets (gold or something else) and for some reason that money isn't turned into assets, then you end up with a problem. It adds a risk of instability, and that kills long term investments.

GILD

2007-09-28, 08:45 AM

You guys own the gold mines, you should be lobbying for this.

If you speed up the economy by printing more money than you have assets (gold or something else) and for some reason that money isn't turned into assets, then you end up with a problem. It adds a risk of instability, and that kills long term investments.
We suspect the mines are just about reaching the end of their lives anyway...

The instability risk is one that can be mitigated with good inflation controls. It doesn't have to kill long term investments.
No risk - no profit.

monkeyman

2007-09-28, 11:12 AM

So we set an exchange rate for the dollar, when we now are trillions in the red, and back this plan with the few billion in gold the gov owns now ? Is it not obvious that the gold will be gone in a few hours ? What would your next move be Danni ? You have cut some expenses from the budget, so what......you still have several trillion dollars in dollars and debt to convert to gold you don't have.

Next plan?

Not all of our assets are in cash right now. I'm still not 100% convinced of the gold standard's validity, but this point seems obvious. If everyone tried to turn their assets into cash right now, there would be a problem. "But", you say, "that would never happen!"

Then why would it happen with the gold standard? People like their shiny, but they won't all rush to the bank to sell their car for some chunks of gold the minute we change to the gold standard.

Gilby

2007-09-28, 11:16 AM

So the gov abolishes the IRS and the Fed. We declare our dollar wealth no longer legal tender. Legal transactions will be expressed in fixed amounts of gold and silver, copper. Only hard currency will be issued.
The paper money wouldn't be declared worthless. You'd just allow competition to the dollar and make gold and silver legal tender again at the free market rate.

1. Our gov just lost it's job of collecting taxes. We can't tax barter. And we just declared our paper currency worthless. Plus we are 5 or 6 trillion dollars in debt. Can we just totally default and say STFU to everyone in the world who is owed money by the USA. ? Maybe, we have lot's of Nuke's, and are good at telling other countries to STFU. Let's say Paul says, "Go for it, we must be free of paper money" !
What happens when a borrower defaults on a loan? Their property is repossed or liquidated. In my opinion, the US should not own any land outside of the 10 mile square of DC. Sell all the property they hold, which I believe is about 1/3 of the land in the US, and repay the debt.

The US does have the power to tax imports, which is the main source of revenue for the fedeal government that the constituion allows. If they do a good job, they can keep this rate low.

2. Where do we get all the metal to make all these coins? We will need the equivalent of half a trillion dollars worth of metal, at least. Who can we buy it from? Our gov has no income, and we just declared that we will no longer print anymore money. Why would the world sell us gold when our money is worthless, we just lost our income, we just defaulted on 6 trillion dollars in debt? I bet the world will say to us, "no way you get any gold or credit from us dudes, cause you a broke crazy guy."
Exchanges of one asset of real value for another of equal and real value.

3 What if Kris wants to sell 1000 KH's in Europe. Does he have the right to demand they pay him in gold ? What does he do when they say no ? What if they still use fiat currency ? If we must continue to except their paper Euro in order to do business, what have we gained dumping the paper dollar ?
KH is from Canada, but let's assume this is a US transaction. He can work out the payment with his customers. He is free to accept euros and then convert them to whatever assets he wants to store his savings in. You are not required to accept their euro, it's up to you on what you want to accept and what you want to store your wealth in. What we gain is a legal system that doesn't force any paper currency on us. Today, if you owe me a dollar, the government forces us to accept the Federal Reserve notes instead of the real thing. A dollar is defined as a specific amount/weight of silver, about 0.72 ounces, but the government is allowing you to use something that is worth much less to pay me back. Greshem's law says that you will pay me with the paper. The gov is impairing the obligation of contracts (a violation of the constitution).

4 The gov's choice will be to back the dollars in circulation now, at some fixed exchange rate to the new gold dollar (metal from where ?), or abandon it. If we say we will exchange 2000 $ in paper dollars, for an oz of gold, we must continue to pay this gold for more then 30 years (as already issued bonds mature). What if we run out of gold ? We are trillions in debt now, and there is perhaps a few hundred billion in gold in the USA now at these prices. What if the world price of gold rises a great deal ?
After selling other liquidable assets, the government can then choose to sell it's gold and silver. You'd take the total gold and silver reserves and divide it by the debt to get how much it can be redeemed for in these bills of credit. This essentially is selling the gold and silver.

5 What if the rest of the world doesn't elect hard coin Paulites ? They think he's crazy and act all Euro socialist on us, and go their own way. What if their fiat money economies continue the same path of exponential growth they have enjoyed for the last decades ? Yet we end up with a 3rd world rate of economic activity shared by other hard currency-barter economies ? Won't that make us their bitch ?
With freedom would come great economic prosperity here. Their fiat money, as long as it's not forced on us by our government at some fixed rate, would not be a danger to us. Their imperialism in which they try to force their fiat currency on us may be a problem, just like what we did to other countries with our US dollar to prop it up.

Transferring from our present paper money system to the gold dollar will pose more then a few problems. I think Paul is taking a page from the great Reagan's play book. Ron was big on the gold based dollar, and projecting a sense of old fashion common money logic. But once in office, he never mentioned it again.:) Was Reagan a sound money gold bug? I know it was during his Presidency that Ron Paul headed the committee that pushed a return to gold and silver. The banking interests won then.

The main purpose of using a commodity for the currency is that it can't be manipulated easily by government. It's value is because of what it can be used for, not because of the government forcing it's use on us. As individuals, we can choose what we keep our savings and investments in and we can choose what our contracts are in.

Borges

2007-09-28, 12:02 PM

5 What if the rest of the world doesn't elect hard coin Paulites ? They think he's crazy and act all Euro socialist on us, and go their own way. What if their fiat money economies continue the same path of exponential growth they have enjoyed for the last decades ? Yet we end up with a 3rd world rate of economic activity shared by other hard currency-barter economies ? Won't that make us their bitch ?
Not Europe, China. And as it is, they're getting closer with the collar and leash.

feel the light

2007-09-29, 01:52 AM

I noted today that my country is 9 trillion $ in debt. Congress voted today to allow the ceiling to be raised to about 10 trillion $. We were only 5.6 trillion in the red when GWB was put in office. Wow! The USA will have 10 trillion $ of debt obligations before any new hope arrives in 2009.

Since there is only 8 trillion dollars in gold, on earth, at it's current price, someone please explain how we could move to the gold dollar now, without defaulting on our treasury bonds ? I'm not trying to convince anyone that it is not a bat shit crazy plan, I am curious if anyone will try to explain how it is even possible.

Please note that if we default on our debt, it is not just the poor old people dependent on social security that will starve. All private pensions will go tits up as well.

Many have expressed the delusion that if the gov must make coin to produce money, this will stop us from going into debt. The delusion is that the gov has been printing dollars all this time to cover the debt. It has not. The actual amount of printed wallet dollars in existence (called M1 by economists) is about a trillion dollars or so.

When the gov deficit spends, it sells a piece of paper with a promise on it that the Federal Reserve of the USA will redeem this note in 20 years for 100,000 USD (not gold). These notes are sold at auction for way less then 100,000 $. The catch is they can't be cashed in for 20 years.

Because the entire world trusts we won't go all wing nut, and abolish the Fed and destroy our credit, these Fed bonds are counted as real money. The economist types can this M2 (the money supply that includes currency and bonded debt). This is a simplified explanation of M2. I hope it serves to explain how Ron Paul could take office with the USA 10 trillion dollars in debt, while there is only 1 ish trillion dollars of printed USD on earth.

To stop congress from deficit spending, we need a constitution amendment to prohibit that practice. They could otherwise go just as far in the red in a hard money system. As long as people buy the bonds, they will sell.

Spoonthumb

2007-09-29, 01:54 AM

the fact that anyone would say that september 11 is the us governments fault makes me angry

feel the light

2007-09-29, 02:30 AM

He is very good at explaining 911 in the correct way. Focusing on our own anger, as a nation, is common. Bush and Gulliani wish to exploit this for personal political gain, and to shovel trillions to the military industry.

But the reasons Paul says Bin Laden did 911 look wise to me.

If you are content to be a part of the problem of war, focus on your anger. But to be part of the solution of peace, we must focus on the anger of our enemies.

We really can't buy and kill our way out of terrorism. It is very true that US policy has greatly angered many foreigners. Bombing people has a way of doing that. Paul has been brave enough to say we should listen to our enemies and learn from them. He is not excusing Bin Laden's behavior, but rather showing how we can avoid making more people like him.
Bush- Cheny is in fact a front for the war industry. They will not kill Bin Laden if they get the chance because they need him. If he dies, how much trouble it will be for them to find-make another.

Spoonthumb

2007-09-29, 02:33 AM

but appeasment wont work either...i wish that there was some middle ground beetween the 2

TrialsUni

2007-09-29, 02:50 AM

Not to disrupt the major line of conversation here, or to deviate from that. But, I would vote for Ron Paul. Americans like underdog stories. Face it people, the major two parties, the corporate parties have failed us time and time again. I'd like to see the people try something new.

I think the American people could be easily convinced to let go of the good ole standard corporate parties with their smoke and mirrors and super-funded gimmickry, if only the major media would let the fuck go.

And Paul, though he's running under the rep. ticket isn't one himself is very third party in his views even though he's not a part of a third party. In a sense this is goof for him, because lots of people compaign that the third parties just fuck the vote up.

If America is really all about change as much as campaign slogans suggest, then we should really rethink electoral politics...

monkeyman

2007-09-29, 04:29 AM

but appeasment wont work either...i wish that there was some middle ground beetween the 2

This is one, big, steaming pile of bullshit. Have you even read the 9/11 (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.pdf) Report? Do you know anything about our foreign policy?

Here's an excerpt from that (much shorter than the full report) executive summary.
In February 1998, Osama Bin Laden and four others issued a self-styled fatwa [(legal opinion relating to Islamic law)], publicly claiming that it was God's decree that every Muslim should try his utmost to kill any American...because of American "occupation" of Islam's holy places and aggression against Muslims

Are you familiar with America's foreign policy about oil? We regard any action that prevents us from getting oil as a threat to our national health, and we will take military action against that nation. Does that not seem a little wrong to you? That our government, supposedly the champion of freedom, infringes on the sovereignty of other countries because we can't get what we want?

Think about that, and then try to tell me that our government didn't indirectly cause 9/11. With the knowledge that Osama Bin Laden said that it was God's will to strike us down because of our imperialistic foreign policy, I don't know how you can honestly say that you believe that our government had no effect on 9/11.

GILD

2007-09-29, 08:26 AM

Does the name Madeleine Albrig (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084)ht mean anything to you Spoon?

Imagine another country killing 500 000 american kids and tell me your trigger finger doesn't get just a little bit twitchy.

idiorythmic

2007-09-30, 02:57 AM

In my travels last week I noticed there's a lot of support for Ron Paul in Michigan.

Judging by the number of yard signs and billboards Paul is popular in Michigan's rural areas, particularly in the eastern lower peninsula and all through the northern parts of the state.

I don't have statistics, poll results or studies to back me, but from what I've seen he's pretty well-known out in the farm districts. Does anyone else here have any observations to report?

Gilby

2007-09-30, 06:25 AM

Since there is only 8 trillion dollars in gold, on earth, at it's current price, someone please explain how we could move to the gold dollar now, without defaulting on our treasury bonds ? I'm not trying to convince anyone that it is not a bat shit crazy plan, I am curious if anyone will try to explain how it is even possible.
You're still failing to see that you do not need the same amount of gold as there are other assets. Gold is a medium of exchange and it may circulate many times to pay off debts. I pay you a dollar to pay a dollar in debt I owe you, you pay someone else that dollar that you owe them, they pay me the dollar they owed me, and round we go until we are all paid off.

Like I said earlier, I think the federal government should sell most of it's land, and probably most of it's other property. It doesn't need to own any land in any of the states. They currently hold 1/3 of the land in the US. Let the States buy it, let organizations buy it (such as environmental groups!), and let citizens buy it. When the government sells something and gets the bills of credit, they use those bills to pay off their debt to the fed, and the dollar bills are then removed from circulation.

Please note that if we default on our debt, it is not just the poor old people dependent on social security that will starve. All private pensions will go tits up as well.
There is no need to default. What is the market value of a dollar? The dollar is like a share of stock in a company, it totals the value of all assets they hold and all expected future revenue (taxes, military plunder).

Many have expressed the delusion that if the gov must make coin to produce money, this will stop us from going into debt. The delusion is that the gov has been printing dollars all this time to cover the debt. It has not. The actual amount of printed wallet dollars in existence (called M1 by economists) is about a trillion dollars or so.
Government only has the power to coin money. They indirectly cause the issuance of more money and this is what is referred to as them printing money. No days, it's just an entry in a database. They have the power to borrow money as well. Lawful money is coins, fixed to standard weights and measures. In other words, they do not have the constitutional power to borrow bills of credit, or give an organization the power to counterfeit.

When the gov deficit spends, it sells a piece of paper with a promise on it that the Federal Reserve of the USA will redeem this note in 20 years for 100,000 USD (not gold). These notes are sold at auction for way less then 100,000 $. The catch is they can't be cashed in for 20 years.
No, the federal reserve will not redeem it, the US Treasury will redeem it, probably by getting another loan.

Because the entire world trusts we won't go all wing nut, and abolish the Fed and destroy our credit, these Fed bonds are counted as real money. The economist types can this M2 (the money supply that includes currency and bonded debt). This is a simplified explanation of M2. I hope it serves to explain how Ron Paul could take office with the USA 10 trillion dollars in debt, while there is only 1 ish trillion dollars of printed USD on earth.

Money Supply figures:
M0: The total of all physical currency, plus accounts at the central bank that can be exchanged for physical currency.
M1: M0 - those portions of M0 held as reserves or vault cash + the amount in demand accounts ("checking" or "current" accounts).
M2: M1 + most savings accounts, money market accounts, and small denomination time deposits (certificates of deposit of under $100,000).
M3: M2 + all other CDs, deposits of eurodollars and repurchase agreements.The M3 is the total dollars in circulation. The fed stopped reporting this figure in March 2006. 3rd parties have been calculating it and the money supply is currently about $12 trillion, and the current growth rate is 14%.

To stop congress from deficit spending, we need a constitution amendment to prohibit that practice. They could otherwise go just as far in the red in a hard money system. As long as people buy the bonds, they will sell.
I don't know if the power to borrow is a bad thing, though they have taken it to extremes and have done it in an unconstitutional manor. If there is a sudden need to spend money on something a strict interpretation of the constitution allows, then you need that power to borrow "money". Finding a lender may be a different issue and any interest rate will reflect the risk of the expenditure and may result in rethinking the action. The alternative is to tax the states a large sum, which would probably cause a sudden hardship.

feel the light

2007-09-30, 11:02 PM

Is all that gold and silver currency is. Ask the average person if they would rather have a pocket of gleaming silver and gold, rather then green smudgy portraits of dead men, and it is an easy sell.:cool:

Unlike many on this forum, I am old enough to remember when all my coins were real silver and copper. Silver is very soft, and gold is even softer. They alloy gold with silver to make the gold coins harder, but they are still very soft.

When I was a child I had a coin collection. It was difficult to collect the dates of coins that were a few decades old. Not because they were scarce. Worn coins had no collector value, and remained in circulation until many years after the clad copper hard alloy coins were introduced. It was common to have half the silver coins in my pocket to have dates that had worn off. You younger folk don't have this memory, so the idea that gold and silver coins are a lasting store of value is easy to believe.:rolleyes:

From personal experience, I would say a silver coin that has been in circulation (it's job as money), will be worn to a smooth blank in 50 years or so. In the old days, the mint would melt these down and add more silver, and mint new coins. Once the mines have played out, where will this new gold and silver come from?:confused:

Because our nation is about 10 trillion in the hole, we must assure ourselves that we have a slow inflation rate. If we went to a gold dollar, and the world price of gold should appreciate 5 % /yr. , that will add 500 billion $ in real value to the debt payments we must cough up as tax payers. Adding this amount to the 400 billion dollars needed to pay interest on the debt, and the gov is shot broke over a barrel dead.:eek: Even if we hadn't got rid of the income tax (which I assume will reduce revenue).

So I think Paul mouths platitudes about abolishing the Fed and going to solid currency because he wants to get attention. Like all republicans, he is borrowing a page from Reagan's script.;)

American currency is the new gold because of several reasons.
1 It is difficult to counterfeit.
2 The USA Fed has done a good job of keeping inflation low and predictable.
3 As the worlds largest economy, there is a large supply of dollars and all businessmen world wide will accept them.

Gilby's contention that somehow the USA forces people in other countries to accept the dollar is false. Castro has been on the official outs with the USA as long as I can remember. Are we using military power to force him to honor the dollar ? :confused: No !, every effort is made by the USA to keep dollars out of Castro's hands. He has set up special "dollar stores " in Cuba. The Castro government really wants more US dollars, because they are highly prized worldwide. They are the preferred currency for the reasons stated above. I know a lot about this because I live 90 miles from Cuba , and many of my friends have gone there. The US gov has prosecuted my neighbors for spending dollars in Cuba!:eek:

Finally, is gold immune to counterfeiting ? With the many advances in energy production likely in the future, I can foresee a day when the extraction of massive amounts of these metals from sea water may be feasible, at a cost of a few dollars an ounce. Already, the diamond industry is sweating bricks. Large colored diamonds are being produced in Russia that are indistinguishable from natural diamonds currently valued at half a million $.
Should we place all our money on the bet that science won't advance ?:confused:

Spoonthumb

2007-09-30, 11:15 PM

well all i can say is that you guys offically PAWNED me lol...neither of these thing did i know of...however that still doesnot excuse 9/11

Gilby

2007-10-02, 03:26 PM

Is all that gold and silver currency is. Ask the average person if they would rather have a pocket of gleaming silver and gold, rather then green smudgy portraits of dead men, and it is an easy sell.:cool:

There must be a reason for that. Maybe it's because people can see the intrinsic value in the gold and silver?

You younger folk don't have this memory, so the idea that gold and silver coins are a lasting store of value is easy to believe.:rolleyes:

Circulated silver coins have about 1.5% less silver in them than uncirculated. Not a big loss. A silver dime today will buy about $1 worth of goods, which is about the same amount of buying power they had when minted.

Once the mines have played out, where will this new gold and silver come from?:confused:

There are tons of silver. If silver does become more limited in supply, then the buying power will rise, and you won't need as much of it in circulation. In other words, supply and demand balance each other out. If we then need coins of smaller values, other cheaper metals would be used, and be denominated at it's free market intrinsic value.

Because our nation is about 10 trillion in the hole, we must assure ourselves that we have a slow inflation rate.

Under a gold standard, the debt would never reach such heights. Like I said before, the federal government should liquidate it's assets it doesn't need under a constitutionally limited government.

The point of a gold standard is to ensure the government doesn't spend beyond it's means.

If we went to a gold dollar, and the world price of gold should appreciate 5 % /yr. , that will add 500 billion $ in real value to the debt payments we must cough up as tax payers. Adding this amount to the 400 billion dollars needed to pay interest on the debt, and the gov is shot broke over a barrel dead.:eek: Even if we hadn't got rid of the income tax (which I assume will reduce revenue).

If gold was expected to increase at that rate, the interest rates would be lower.

So I think Paul mouths platitudes about abolishing the Fed and going to solid currency because he wants to get attention. Like all republicans, he is borrowing a page from Reagan's script.;)

Ron Paul has been advocating sound money since the mid-1970s, and he was one of only a handful that supported Reagan's bid for President in 1976. Which script was written first? Whatever the case is, Ron Paul writes his own scripts and corporate special interests stay away because of this.

Gilby's contention that somehow the USA forces people in other countries to accept the dollar is false. Castro has been on the official outs with the USA as long as I can remember. Are we using military power to force him to honor the dollar ? :confused: No !, every effort is made by the USA to keep dollars out of Castro's hands. He has set up special "dollar stores " in Cuba. The Castro government really wants more US dollars, because they are highly prized worldwide. They are the preferred currency for the reasons stated above. I know a lot about this because I live 90 miles from Cuba , and many of my friends have gone there. The US gov has prosecuted my neighbors for spending dollars in Cuba!:eek:

I don't see any relevance to Cuba, other than that our military dominance, which has backed the dollar, has made it hard to do trade without using the dollar and therefore they demand it.

After WWII, we didn't suffer as much as most other countries, and we therefore had all the gold and the strongest military. This resulted in the Bretton-Woods agreement, which established the dollar as the world's reserve currency. The dollar was convertible to gold at a set rate of $35 per ounce, and we continued to run the printing presses. In the late 1960s, some countries were demanding exchange, and this led to the end of that pseudo-gold standard in 1971. This then caused instability in the dollar which caused OPEC to agree to accept only the dollar for oil, in exchange for military protection. Since the world needs oil, they demanded our dollars because that's the only way they could pay for it. Our military involvement in the OPEC nations, many of which are in the middle-east, caused a lot of resentment towards us there. It's a major factor in the problems we have today. Now with the Euro as a major competing currency and our current problems in the middle east, the future of the dollar doesn't look so bright. We can only use our military might overseas and overspend at home for so long, until it will collapse. It will require a tightening of the money supply, with high interest rates, to save the dollar. If they keep rates low or lower them further, we will have hyperinflation. That might be likely because those who print the money have the power. If they choose to stop printing, they those their power.

Finally, is gold immune to counterfeiting ?

Nothing is immune to counterfeiting. Paper money is the most counterfeited -- by the issuer! Why do you think a dollar bill is worth a tenth of a real silver dollar? Technology today makes detecting counterfeit gold and silver coins quite easy.

With the many advances in energy production likely in the future, I can foresee a day when the extraction of massive amounts of these metals from sea water may be feasible, at a cost of a few dollars an ounce.

Cool, so the price of anything that takes energy as an input will be cheaper. Sounds like gold will have about the same buying power, and we won't have to work as much to enjoy the same quality of living.

Already, the diamond industry is sweating bricks. Large colored diamonds are being produced in Russia that are indistinguishable from natural diamonds currently valued at half a million $.

Turning carbon into another form of carbon is a little different than discovering gold and doing it's refinement more efficiently. Carbon is one of the most abundant elements. Makes you wonder why there is a push to regulate it, in the form of CO2, today.

Should we place all our money on the bet that science won't advance ?:confused: That's not the bet being made, but no, you should never put all your eggs in one basket. The free market is the best way to to ensure the best allocation of resources. Central planning causes malinvestments.

wobbling bear

2007-10-03, 11:17 AM

Gilby

2007-10-03, 01:30 PM

another tv ad for a "paulista" future:

"now that we got rid of those pesky F.D.A inspectors who curtailed innovation
people can get the medicine they want!
we, at Snake Oil Corporation, have been eager to meet people demand
and the market forces gave birth to the most cherished brand in medicine history!
Statistics prove that our customers die less often than those of our competitors!
And we'll match that with our "satisfied or your money back 10 times!"
(I you die twice we'll reimburse 10 times your expenses)"
-Alfred.E.Neumann S.O.C C.E.O-

Eliminating the FDA does not eliminate the legal system. The claims would still have to be proven, and all contracts honored. You just don't have the fascist organization such as the FDA preventing things from being available in the market.

wobbling bear

2007-10-03, 02:47 PM

Eliminating the FDA does not eliminate the legal system. The claims would still have to be proven, and all contracts honored. You just don't have the fascist organization such as the FDA preventing things from being available in the market.
He, he: I was waiting for this very answer! so you are willing to risk the life of a loved one just to prove that the "natural selection" opered by the market will work?
forgetting history is bad: why was the FDA set up in the first place ? because people died from unfortunate corporate experiences (people marketing snake oil ... then corresponding corporations just disappearing when justice was on the trail).
This does not mean that any government agency should not be open to scrutiny or to effectiveness obligation ... but throwing the baby with the bath water is a dangerous option!
btw: why do you overuse the adjective "fascist" ? have you ever lived under a "fascist" government? We (Europeans) unfortunately have (except britain and some fortunate countries) .... and frankly you should be cautious : excessive adjectives weaken arguments ....

Gilby

2007-10-03, 04:08 PM

He, he: I was waiting for this very answer! so you are willing to risk the life of a loved one just to prove that the "natural selection" opered by the market will work?

A free market would have organizations like the FDA that will certify drugs and such. Reputable stores will only sell ones certified. Reputable doctors will only prescribe drugs that are medically proven and certified.

Just because the government does it now, does not mean that the free market cannot do it with the absence of the government monopoly.

Right now, the FDA picks and chooses winners, and many more people are killed each year waiting the several years it takes the slow bureaucracy to approve new drugs and medical devices.

btw: why do you overuse the adjective "fascist" ? Fascism is the same as corporatism. The FDA is fascist over the food, drug and medical industries.

have you ever lived under a "fascist" government? Yes, the USA is a fascist country. There are different levels of fascism, and in many things we still have some freedoms, but much of what the government does is fascist in nature. Fascism favors special treatment for corporations, and socialism favors government run organizations. What you may be thinking of is totalitarian government, where every aspect is under dictatorial control. At the rate we are going here in the US, we are not far from that.

wobbling bear

2007-10-03, 04:57 PM

A free market would have organizations like the FDA that will certify drugs and such. Reputable stores will only sell ones certified. Reputable doctors will only prescribe drugs that are medically proven and certified.

Just because the government does it now, does not mean that the free market cannot do it with the absence of the government monopoly..

dangerous assumptions: willing to risk anything for the sake of an idealist world of "reputability"!
if you think your governement is corrupt please come and see what happens when corporations are in charge! corruption is disguised as normal business practices.
there are whole departments in charge of handling "reputability".

wobbling bear

2007-10-03, 05:02 PM

Fascism favors special treatment for corporations, .
don't you contradict here: you say that fascism favors corporations
which are the backbone of "free market" .....
or is it a slip of tongue on the many meanings of "corporation" :rolleyes:
(I find the association meaningful by the way! because fascist government did mix the two meanings voluntarily)

Gilby

2007-10-03, 05:22 PM

dangerous assumptions: willing to risk anything for the sake of an idealist world of "reputability"!
if you think your governement is corrupt please come and see what happens when corporations are in charge! corruption is disguised as normal business practices.
there are whole departments in charge of handling "reputability".

You can't end corruption. The difference though, is that when government is corrupt, they force teh corruption and limit alternatives. When corruption happens in a free market, it opens up the door to competition and eventually the corrupt practices lose out to the competition.

don't you contradict here: you say that fascism favors corporations
which are the backbone of "free market" .....
or is it a slip of tongue on the many meanings of "corporation" :rolleyes:
(I find the association meaningful by the way! because fascist government did mix the two meanings voluntarily)

No. Corporatism is where a government writes legislation that favors existing players in the market and limits the entry of competition. You hear all the time about legislation that is for special interests. The best recent example of fascism/corporatism, is Haliburton. The whole military industrial complex, big pharma, federal reserve system, and others are fascist.

johnfoss

2007-10-03, 10:02 PM

Gilby

2007-10-03, 11:48 PM

They don't now. How would that change?

Which statement is your question to?

Other certification organizations do not exist because the FDA has a government imposed monopoly.

Stores carry what the FDA approves.
Doctors prescribe what the FDA approves.

The change is that the liability will fall on the parties involved and they will have to make sure the drugs are proven, or their insurance will be too high, or other liability costs will be too high.

Here is a good explanation of how the free market will take over without an FDA: http://www.lewrockwell.com/grichar/grichar17.html

feel the light

2007-10-04, 03:30 AM

wobbling bear

2007-10-04, 08:25 AM

tv ad for a "paulista" future.

"by hiring the most brilliant legal minds in Inner Mongolia Corporate Justice inc. has provided its customers the best deal they could afford: independence for the best price on the market!
Find out by yourself : bring your case to Corporate Justice inc.!
Satisfied or refunded!"

Gilby

2007-10-04, 02:24 PM

The USA economy is less then 1/5 of the global economy. All countries are on paper now . Should the USA suddenly get all insane coin nostalgic, and issue solid coin dollars , we would end up needing to do business with their paper currency anyway. Our Paulist silver dollar coins could not remain in circulation amongst the paper Euro, whon, maple leaf etc.

Why not?

Gresham's law states that if there are two different currencies in the market, the one with the most metal value will disappear from circulation. People will hoard the more valuable unit, and spend the other.

Gresham's law says that bad money drives out good money. So gold and silver coins are good money, and the Euro is bad money, and you claim that will drive out our currency if we switch to gold and silver coinage. But that's incorrect. It requires the force of legal tender laws to say they must be accepted as the same. That's what happened in the 60s here when they stopped minting coins using silver. The new cupronickel quarters were accepted alongside the silver quarters. As you would expect, people would pull the silver coins out of circulation and keep the silver coins because they were worth more.

A euro is not going to be forced here as being equal to a certain amount of gold or silver. Yeah, you may need to use that currency for some international transactions, you deal with it the same way you do now, by exchanging your local currency for it at the time of purchase.

The USA citizen may act as if his country has all the money, and may vote in rules that the whole world must follow. But the world won't ! They already think we are retards for electing Bush... TWICE !:rolleyes: Actually the world economy is many times as large as the USA economy. Unless we were to end international trade, we must mint silver dollars for the whole of the earths economy (as we now do with paper dollars) or mint silver dollars until the country is out of gold and silver. And then be ruined.

I fail to see your logic. You claim that the rest of the world wont accept our ways, but we need to coin money for everyone in the world. Other countries can choose to use gold and silver as well, and they can coin their own money. If more coins are needed here, you buy more gold and silver, then mint them, and sell them. And again, there is no limit to money supply as anything that can be easily liquidated can be converted to whatever payment medium is used in a transaction.

Converting the USA to solid currency isn't just a bad idea. It is impossible!:rolleyes:

It's possible, even if you prefer to have an otherwise useless piece of paper in your hands.

feel the light

2007-10-05, 06:49 AM

"I fail to see your logic. You claim that the rest of the world wont accept our ways, but we need to coin money for everyone in the world. Other countries can choose to use gold and silver as well, and they can coin their own money. If more coins are needed here, you buy more gold and silver, then mint them, and sell them. And again, there is no limit to money supply as anything that can be easily liquidated can be converted to whatever payment medium is used in a transaction."-Gilby

The rest of the world will laugh uproariously at our idiocy, should we attempt to mint gold and silver coin for the entire earth. They will cheerfully accept them (like they do the dollar now) , and hoard them, because they are the only legal tender "appreciating" (to use Gilby's preferred word for deflationary currency),dollar on earth. The only non inflationary currency on earth. Gresham's law states that this Paulistic silver coin will be hoarded.

Of the 1.5 trillion $ of USA paper dollars in existance on earth now, half are hoarded in other countries now. This cost's the USA the cost of printing high expense cloth bills, that are used to benifit the economies of other countries,
like Cuba. But at least the inflation of this money gives the USA some value feedback.

To suddenly change to a silver dollar now, we would need 20 trillion dollars in silver. Where do we get the other 19.87 trillion dollars worth of silver (at current market price) that the USA gov does not own? This is not just wing nut, it is an impossible task to even pretend to attempt.:rolleyes:

Danni

2007-10-05, 08:32 AM

I understood that U.S. citizens won't circulate gold coins, but the American dollar will backed by gold. This means that if you want, you can go to a government building and demand your money be changed into a fixed amount of gold. If the government starts to print their way through bills, and the dollar's worth goes down, you can recoup your losses by demanding gold.

Buying stuff will still be dealt in the original currency.

Gilby

2007-10-05, 06:32 PM

The rest of the world will laugh uproariously at our idiocy, should we attempt to mint gold and silver coin for the entire earth. They will cheerfully accept them (like they do the dollar now) , and hoard them, because they are the only legal tender "appreciating" (to use Gilby's preferred word for deflationary currency),dollar on earth. The only non inflationary currency on earth. Gresham's law states that this Paulistic silver coin will be hoarded.

Gresham's law requires legal tender laws. I think that's where you are misunderstnading it. The reintroduction of silver and gold as currency would be to use them at the free market value. An ounce of silver would not be fixed to the current bills of credit we use.

Of the 1.5 trillion $ of USA paper dollars in existance on earth now, half are hoarded in other countries now. This cost's the USA the cost of printing high expense cloth bills, that are used to benifit the economies of other countries,
like Cuba. But at least the inflation of this money gives the USA some value feedback.

Coined bullion comes at a premium because it is recognized in the market and is of known value. We don't lose anything by issuing gold and silver, because they will be coined and then sold at a premium which covers the costs of minting. If other countries want to have reserves in gold and silver, then so what, let them.

To suddenly change to a silver dollar now, we would need 20 trillion dollars in silver. Where do we get the other 19.87 trillion dollars worth of silver (at current market price) that the USA gov does not own? This is not just wing nut, it is an impossible task to even pretend to attempt.:rolleyes:

Why do we need that much silver to switch? The government doesn't need any silver or gold at all to convert. They simply would take gold and silver as payment, then use that gold and silver to make coins, and then return it in coined form after taking some of the gold and silver to cover costs.

To go to a silver and gold currency, you can't just revert back to the old fixed redemption at the same value as before. You issue gold and silver coins, eliminate all laws that make it costly to use gold and silver, such as the tax and banking laws, and let the gold and silver currency be used along side current paper fiat money. If allowed to be done in a free market, without legal tender laws fixing the values of the old and new. Eventually people will prefer to use the real money and that will become the predominate currency.

Gilby

2007-10-05, 06:35 PM

I understood that U.S. citizens won't circulate gold coins, but the American dollar will backed by gold. The constitution does not give the government the power to issue paper money. They only have the power to coin money. Once they allow paper money to be issued and then backed by gold, they have teh incentive to do fractional reserve banking which means they print more money than they have to back it. That's where the inflationary and deflationary problems come in. The market can issue their own notes, and government can regulate that to ensure there is no counterfeiting.

Gilby

2007-10-08, 08:11 PM

the fact that anyone would say that september 11 is the us governments fault makes me angry

Why does it make you angry? Is the US government immune from doing any wrong? Is it because you've put your trust in this government? Are we not able to look at the reality of what our foreign policy over many decades has caused?

We need to look at our policies and the effects they have from all sides and views. The facts are that we have been meddling in the middle east for a very long time militarily. That does promote hatred there against us. If we flipped the situation around and what happened to them happened here instead, we may have a tremendous hatred towards them and maybe even be tempted to carry out suicide attacks.

Here is a good YouTube video showing the sentiment towards us of our current war there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzIPSGhooP4

Here is an article from today: Report says war on terror is fuelling al Qaeda (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL037906320071007)

Gilby

2007-10-12, 06:46 AM

Here is a good interview of Ron Paul where he goes into depth about money: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1045924545087333822

Oh, and this viral one is good, with 9898 diggs so far: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA

Buddy

2007-12-18, 12:30 AM

I went to Austin's Ron Paul Rally commemorating the Boston Tea Party and someone posted a bunch of pictures on youtube and I'm in one of them on my uni. Thought I'd share. 1:10 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=F9F0V89hUGk)

MuniAddict

2007-12-18, 12:52 AM

<<Ron Paul - Will Americans Support Him?>>

No chance in hell.:rolleyes: In the same boat: Alan Keyes, Duncan Hunter, John McCain (Rino), Tom Tancredo.

Gilby

2007-12-18, 03:26 AM

<<Ron Paul - Will Americans Support Him?>>

No chance in hell.:rolleyes: In the same boat: Alan Keyes, Duncan Hunter, John McCain (Rino), Tom Tancredo.

And just how good are you at predicting these types of things?

MuniAddict

2007-12-18, 04:22 AM

And just how good are you at predicting these types of things?Edit: We'll just have to wait and see I guess. :)

nick

2007-12-18, 05:55 PM

Edit: We'll just have to wait and see I guess. :)

Where are the Kucinich supporters?

DK FTW!

Spoonthumb

2007-12-18, 07:28 PM

Gilby

2007-12-18, 08:04 PM

its like saying 2 wrongs make a right... He's not justifying it. He's just explaining the cause and proposing a change of foreign policy to prevent such events in the future.

nick

2007-12-18, 08:19 PM

i like most of this guys idea's, but i just dont agree with the fact that he's blaming the government for 9/11 thats like saying that its your fault that you go shot because you flipped off a gangbanger (i relize that the government hasn't done everything regarding the middle east right in any respect, i just think its ridiculous to blame that kind of mistake (pissing off ppl in the middle east) for a blatant attack) its like saying 2 wrongs make a right...

i apologize for my poorspelling/grammar im kinda in a hurry...

It's not like flipping off a gangster, it's more like sticking your hand into a beehive to steal all the honey, and then getting stung.

Or to use the gangster analogy:

You sold guns to a rival gang for years and years, and then you had sex with his mother, and then you keyed his car, and then you fliped him off and then he shot you.

I'm certianly not defending the 9/11 attacks. Innocent people died in the towers. I am saying that the American governemnt screws people, countries, factions, etc, over all the time, so it's not hard to see why the attacks took place.

Danni

2007-12-18, 11:09 PM

Yes, there is a reason why a lot of people hate the US.

Spoonthumb

2007-12-18, 11:12 PM

^^^^cause of the gangsters :D

i know thats what i hate about it...

Danni

2007-12-18, 11:17 PM

What about that you enter foreign countries and put military bases where you wish? If anyone else did that to the US, they would nuke them back to the stone age. Just look at Cuba in the cold war, holy shit.

Into the blue

2007-12-18, 11:36 PM

Just look at Cuba in the cold war, holy shit.

DRIVE THIS BUS TO CUBA!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkVEif0WKoQ&feature=related

UniBrier

2008-04-04, 03:37 PM

Ron is still running. (http://www.slate.com/id/2175817/?GT1=38001)
After a month and a half off the trail, Ron Paul is back in action. We last saw Paul in his home state of Texas rallying University of Texas students in Austin. But since then, he slunk away from the presidential circuit to fight off a primary challenger in his home district on March 4. He won that battle but lost the presidency to John McCain in the meantime. ...

Gilby

2008-04-04, 05:38 PM

It's not over. His new book is coming out soon. The Revolution: A Manifesto. (http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537519/) His run for president was just the beginning. While he may not get the Republican nomination, the revolution has been given a huge kickstart. Freedom can prevail.

Gilby

2008-04-06, 02:27 AM

In MN today, 3 congressional districts had their conventions and Ron Paul swept house for delegates to the national convention in all 3. :) Though in one it's questionable on if they are bound to vote for McCain. It was a weird motion there.

Gilby

2008-04-08, 03:48 PM

ekachakra

2011-07-03, 01:34 AM

hes even more dangerous than bush. I mean no income tax and secure the borders some more. Sounds like someone is desperate to get elected on no real ideas.

Aloha, Brendan,

Sorry brother, you are woefully misinformed. Ron Paul's ideas are brilliant and persuasively presented. Only Barack Obama has proven more dangerous than Bush, shocking many who supported and voted for him by expanding the "Bush Wars" AND the "War on Drugs", and imprisoning more people for talking to the press than ALL previous U.S. Presidents COMBINED!

No real ideas? Congressman Dr. Ron Paul has sold more books than all other 2011 Republican Candidates put together. You shoud read one: http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Defined-Essential-Issues-Freedom/dp/145550145X

And of books written for adults, compare the sales of Congressman Dr. Paul's top three best-selling books with those of Baraka Obama:

Obama: The Audacity Hope, Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #9,139
Paul: Liberty Defined, Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #981

Obama: Dreams from My Father, Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #3,976
Paul: END THE FED, Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #3,914 in Books

Obama: Change We Can Believe In, Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #118,310
Paul: The RƎVO˩UTION, A Manifesto, Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #3,931

Now, he IS a an avid, bicyclist, he rides nearly daily, but, heh, nobody's perfect.

Heretical Rants

2011-07-03, 02:16 AM

Gold standard sounds stupid, power to the states sounds stupid, anti-abortion sounds stupid, etc....

...and yet, if I were to vote for any republican candidate, it would be Ron Paul.

Down with the Fed! Yar!!

BillyTheMountain

2011-07-03, 03:01 AM

Ron Paul wants heroin legal.

harper

2011-07-03, 03:31 AM

Ron Paul wants heroin legal.

Finally, a rational voice in the misdirected furor of drug control. I have always wanted to be able to send my granddaughter to WalMart to pick up good, clean, cheap heroin. Unfortunately there won't be an abortion clinic there for my daughter to go to if she wants. Will I be able to send my gay lover to the hardware store to buy a 50 caliber B.A.R.?

Heretical Rants

2011-07-03, 04:38 AM

Ron Paul wants heroin legal.

So do I, then these drug cartels/gangs wouldn't have any power anymore.

...on the flip side of the coin, there could be a slight increase in the number of heroin users....:rolleyes:

johnfoss

2011-07-03, 07:09 AM

Did anybody notice that this thread got revived by someone who apparently works for Ron Paul's campaigning organization? Were they still around to read our replies, I would ask how those book rankings compare to the $ales figures for those books. Not that either proves one is a "better" book than the other. :)

kamikaze

2011-07-03, 10:48 AM

I've got no idea about Ron Paul, he sounds as dangerous as Obama turned out.

But how do sales and # of words written indicate intelligent life forms?

Just look at The Sun (UK) or Bild (Germany). There's a polish paper from the same publisher that does Bild in Germany and they do a lot of anti Germany rhetoric, it's hilarious.

Doug

2011-07-03, 01:59 PM

Finally, a rational voice in the misdirected furor of drug control. I have always wanted to be able to send my granddaughter to WalMart to pick up good, clean, cheap heroin. Unfortunately there won't be an abortion clinic there for my daughter to go to if she wants. Will I be able to send my gay lover to the hardware store to buy a 50 caliber B.A.R.?

I wish Buster had edited this for you before posting. I don't think the B.A.R ever came in a 50 caliber, even when Clyde Barrow used it.

harper

2011-07-03, 02:39 PM

I wish Buster had edited this for you before posting. I don't think the B.A.R ever came in a 50 caliber, even when Clyde Barrow used it.

So...you're saying I can't send my gay lover to the hardware store to buy a 50 caliber B.A.R.? What kind of society do we live in? I guess it's no longer Heinlein's polite society.

Buster is deaf, now. I ask him to proofread my text and he just ignores me. I think he would miss a lot with his failing vision anyway. On a day like tomorrow I would usually ask him to read the Declaration of Independence aloud but he balks (not barks) at the idea these days. He may be 15 years old but he's still going to the beach today.

Do you ever hear anything from CokerHead?

Doug

2011-07-03, 03:20 PM

So...you're saying I can't send my gay lover to the hardware store to buy a 50 caliber B.A.R.? What kind of society do we live in? I guess it's no longer Heinlein's polite society.

Because of the society we live in, you can send your gay lover to the hardware store to buy a 50 caliber B.A.R. He just won't be successful.

Although no one around here has seen CokerHead in a long time, he is a legend in this area for his unicycle riding. People ask me about him on a regular basis. I think he finished Oklahoma Freewheel on his third try, something like that. Oklahoma Freewheel is a supported ride from Texas to Kansas for about a thousand riders. They camp out every night in towns that really welcome them. The pressure to keep up with b*kers that have a south Oklahoma wind had to be tough on him.

Is it possible for us to get Buster's take on Ron Paul without you inserting your opinions? (not that they haven't been insightful)

kamikaze

2011-07-03, 04:05 PM

What is a B.A.R.? And why would you want one?

harper

2011-07-03, 04:41 PM

What is a B.A.R.? And why would you want one?

Let me address your two questions separately.

1.) It's a Browning Automatic Rifle.
2.) It's a Browning Automatic Rifle.

harper

2011-07-03, 04:42 PM

Although no one around here has seen CokerHead in a long time, he is a legend in this area for his unicycle riding. People ask me about him on a regular basis.

Mark came through here leading an oversized load a few years ago and we went on a ride with him. (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35488) I think that's the last I heard from him. He was a riot.

Is it possible for us to get Buster's take on Ron Paul without you inserting your opinions? (not that they haven't been insightful)

Woof. Woof, woof. Ron Paul won't make us wear no steenking leashes.

kamikaze

2011-07-03, 05:21 PM

2.) It's a Browning Automatic Rifle.Really don't see what that's good for.

Different cultures, I suppose.

Doug

2011-07-03, 05:49 PM

Really don't see what that's good for.

It's difficult to learn to handle.
It's part of an exclusive club.
People are impressed by your mastery of it.
It's addictive.
It comes in different configurations.
It can be hung on the wall and admired.
Easily transportable.

kamikaze

2011-07-03, 07:25 PM

Don't you have unicycles for that?

harper

2011-07-03, 08:56 PM

Don't you have unicycles for that?

Sure. Or a Rubix cube. Or juggling clubs. Or a hockey stick. Or a frisbee.

Are you anywhere near the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology? I have a group of colleagues there right now installing the detector section on the KATRIN experiment.

kamikaze

2011-07-03, 10:14 PM

Yep, I more or less pass through every day.

BillyTheMountain

2011-07-03, 10:20 PM

So do I, then these drug cartels/gangs wouldn't have any power anymore.

...on the flip side of the coin, there could be a slight increase in the number of heroin users....:rolleyes:

Hmmm. You think the legal pharmaceutical companies have no power? Or you think drug cartels could not sell legal heroin?

BillyTheMountain

2011-07-03, 10:22 PM

So...you're saying I can't send my gay lover to the hardware store

We know you're married to a woman, but we did not know you ALSO had a gay lover. Are you insatiable?;)

BillyTheMountain

2011-07-03, 10:24 PM

Yep, I more or less pass through every day.

Are they installing a special batting parlor where you can smash atoms?:cool:

johnfoss

2011-07-03, 11:01 PM

But how do sales and # of words written indicate intelligent life forms?They don't. But then again there aren't good metrics for determining what makes a book "good". In America, the first metric is often $$, but this indicates popularity, not necessarily intelligence. In fact, popularity and intelligence seem seldom to be found in the same place...

leo

2011-07-15, 08:50 PM

the fact that anyone would say that september 11 is the us governments fault makes me angry

And 5 years later?

Gilby

2011-07-16, 02:23 AM

And 5 years later?

Even 10 years since 9/11, many people are going to still be too ignorant to understand blowback when it comes to the actions of their government. People are in many cases too proud of their government to know better...

If I shit on my neighbors yard all the time, do I really think I did not have any cause when my neighbor got a ton of shit and dumped it in my yard?

leo

2011-07-16, 05:34 PM

People are in many cases too proud of their government to know better...

Lack of empathy (http://www.cognitivemedia.co.uk/wp/?p=201) (or restricted by nationalism), or lack of vision that goes beyond the power and authority of propaganda (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PPiadun9Jo)-makers.

Let's swop focus from "the war on terror" to "the war on drugs";
it seems the drugs are winning in Afganistan, and on the U.S. streets.
With such a export restrictions who could be behind that?
The same "Taliban" or those who came up with the name القاعدة (http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=15254) ...?

BillyTheMountain

2011-07-16, 08:04 PM

Even 10 years since 9/11, many people are going to still be too ignorant to understand blowback when it comes to the actions of their government. People are in many cases too proud of their government to know better...

If I shit on my neighbors yard all the time, do I really think I did not have any cause when my neighbor got a ton of shit and dumped it in my yard?

What??!

Isn't that shit from the USA actually valuable fertilizer?:D

feel the light

2011-07-17, 07:26 AM

Stuff I don't like

Gold is not money, it is a commodity. Abortions will take place, dangerously, if they are illegal.

What I like about Ron Paul.
His foreign policy is spot on. Get the fuck out. His explanation of "blow back" is spot on. The best. We are the bully corporate sponsored ass holes of the world and they hate us for it for this reason. Paul stands alone in being the only major voice saying this. I love this guy.

Gilby

2011-07-19, 12:27 PM

Stuff I don't like

Gold is not money, it is a commodity. Abortions will take place, dangerously, if they are illegal.

Gold has been money for thousands of years. It has consistently been what civilizations fall back to using when other attempts at money fail. It is a commodity, and it is money. His position as far as what the United States should do is to simply legalize it and allow competition with federal reserve notes. Remove the barriers (taxes, reporting, coining, etc) that are limiting its use as money right now. A non-fiat money system would restrain the government so it can't create endless wars and bail out its corporate interests.

While Ron Paul is pro-life, his position is to return it to state jurisdiction, just like murder, and other crimes, which currently fall under state jurisdiction.

Gilby

2011-07-19, 12:30 PM

What??!

Isn't that shit from the USA actually valuable fertilizer?:D

Opportunity cost. Yes, that would be a more productive use of that stuff. Just like there are more productive uses of our resources than to wage endless war.

MrBoogiejuice

2011-07-19, 01:27 PM

Gold has been money for thousands of years. It has consistently been what civilizations fall back to using when other attempts at money fail. It is a commodity, and it is money. His position as far as what the United States should do is to simply legalize it and allow competition with federal reserve notes. Remove the barriers (taxes, reporting, coining, etc) that are limiting its use as money right now. A non-fiat money system would restrain the government so it can't create endless wars and bail out its corporate interests.

While Ron Paul is pro-life, his position is to return it to state jurisdiction, just like murder, and other crimes, which currently fall under state jurisdiction.

So his libertarianism doesn't extend to women's dominion over their own body - he still deems it acceptable for government (local or national is irrelevant, both are coercive institutions) to hold sway over an individual's reproductive rights?

If centralised national government is so bad why is a smaller, more localised version any better?

Seems to me his thinking's rather inconsistent; individual freedom is paramount unless you don't happen to own property or are a woman.

BillyTheMountain

2011-07-19, 02:19 PM

Ron Paul is pro-life.

Ron Paul is anti-choice. fify

Gilby

2011-07-19, 05:36 PM

So his libertarianism doesn't extend to women's dominion over their own body - he still deems it acceptable for government (local or national is irrelevant, both are coercive institutions) to hold sway over an individual's reproductive rights?

There are two individuals in this. Are one individual's rights more important than another's? That's what makes this a difficult issue. One extreme says there are two lives at conception, and the other extreme says there is only one until the baby is completely born.

If centralised national government is so bad why is a smaller, more localised version any better?

You're asking an anarchist... An entity using the threat of violence to gain power over others is not good in any situation. A smaller entity having power over a smaller number of people is better than a large entity having that power. Neither situation is good, but one is better than the other.

When it comes to how a group of people can live and interact with each other, there is no one perfect way that works for everyone. Having things dealt with in a more local mannor allows people to try different things to figure out what works for them and it allows an individual to have more say.

Seems to me his thinking's rather inconsistent; individual freedom is paramount unless you don't happen to own property or are a woman.

Good thing everyone is a property owner under a free society. You own your body.

Ron Paul is anti-choice. fify

I know it's hard to get past the idea that there are only two options in this debate. If I wasn't clear: Ron Paul as an individual is pro-life, his policy isn't to dictate his personal pro-life position on everyone else through the federal government. Leave it up to state jurisdiction and you get many choices.

GizmoDuck

2011-07-20, 01:37 AM

So his libertarianism doesn't extend to women's dominion over their own body - he still deems it acceptable for government (local or national is irrelevant, both are coercive institutions) to hold sway over an individual's reproductive rights?

If centralised national government is so bad why is a smaller, more localised version any better?

Seems to me his thinking's rather inconsistent; individual freedom is paramount unless you don't happen to own property or are a woman.

Termination of pregnancy is not a libertarian issue- because you can take both opposing views.

It is a definition of life issue.

If you define life as at conception, then of course it should be classified as 'murder'. As a libertarian, you can't 'choose' to murder your next door neighbour or family member because you don't like them. That affects their 'freedom' to live. I can't think of a worse term than 'pro-choice'...it implies that you can 'choose' to murder someone if you define them as being alive.

Now, how one defines life:

-Do you define life at conception? Yet a fertilised egg, and/or blastocyst is nothing more than a small clump of cells. With technology being what it is, we can conceivably clone a human being from somatic cells in the near future. Does that mean every-time you brush your teeth and slough off cheek cells you are committing mass murder?

-Do you define life as after the development of the neural tube (ie early brain)? If you define life beginning prior to this, are you opposed to organ donation? After all, we harvest organs from 'brain dead' people.

-Do you define it when a foetus is viable? That changes with technological advances, but is about/after 20wks gestation.

-Do you define it at birth?

-When they are independent? In which case it should be legitimate to terminate children.

I consider myself to hold libertarian views, but I have a different definition of life to Ron Paul, so I don't support his stance on this issue. To me, you need a brain to be considered 'alive'.

Not that it affects me as I'm not a US Voter.

GizmoDuck

2011-07-20, 02:07 AM

Gold has been money for thousands of years. It has consistently been what civilizations fall back to using when other attempts at money fail. It is a commodity, and it is money.

I don't consider Gold a commodity in the sense that it is an input into making things...its value is solely dependent on what people think it is worth or can be exchanged for, not what it is used to make. Therefore it is more a currency than a commodity. Even Silver has industrial uses as a commodity, gold has none (unless you're talking jewellery, which is a relatively minute amount).

A family friend was a refugee from Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge era. Before she fled, they buried all their money and gold under a tree.

Fast forward to 2009, and she returned to the burial site and they dug up what was left behind all those years ago. Guess which retained it's value?

They threw scattered the paper money before leaving.

Gilby

2011-07-20, 02:51 AM

Not that it affects me as I'm not a US Voter.

Unfortunately, US politics does affect you, since the man behind the curtain likes to commit mass murder to foreigners, which oddly enough is promoted and/or supported by those that claim to be pro-life. War is anything but pro-life.

Gilby

2011-07-20, 02:56 AM

I don't consider Gold a commodity in the sense that it is an input into making things...its value is solely dependent on what people think it is worth or can be exchanged for, not what it is used to make. Therefore it is more a currency than a commodity. Even Silver has industrial uses as a commodity, gold has none (unless you're talking jewellery, which is a relatively minute amount).

The value of any asset is in what it can be used for and what the demand is for those uses. You're wrong about gold not having industrial uses. It's used a lot in electronics, though the actual amount is low. The typical cell phone has $0.50 to $1 of gold in it.

GizmoDuck

2011-07-20, 03:25 AM

I meant it doesn't affect me in the sense that I have no say on the matter, and unless the US decide to push its view on TOPs in their foreign policy, their position doesn't affect us. Of course I take an interest in the US, most things you do over there does affect the rest of the world.

In terms of Gold, sure there are a few industrial uses, but it is dwarfed by its use as an alternate currency or store of value.

BillyTheMountain

2011-07-20, 05:00 AM

I know it's hard to get past the idea that there are only two options in this debate. If I wasn't clear: Ron Paul as an individual is pro-life, his policy isn't to dictate his personal pro-life position on everyone else through the federal government. Leave it up to state jurisdiction and you get many choices.

No one is pro-abortion, so his personal pro-life position is worthless. a libertarian does not support the individual states right to control the drugs you put into your body or what you do with your body.

For the women in many states, his position leaves them no choice, as is already the case. It's his downfall that he lets individual states control an individual's body and personal medical choices.

harper

2011-07-20, 05:48 AM

No one is pro-abortion, so his personal pro-life position is worthless. a libertarian does not support the individual states right to control the drugs you put into your body or what you do with your body.

For the women in many states, his position leaves them no choice, as is already the case. It's his downfall that he lets individual states control an individual's body and personal medical choices.

Wow. Billy didn't cut and paste that. He thought it up with his own high school civics teacher's mind. Someone must've pushed one of his buttons.

BillyTheMountain

2011-07-20, 03:43 PM

Wow. Billy didn't cut and paste that. He thought it up with his own high school civics teacher's mind. Someone must've pushed one of his buttons.

and it took me HOURS!

MrBoogiejuice

2011-07-21, 12:40 AM

There are two individuals in this. Are one individual's rights more important than another's? That's what makes this a difficult issue. One extreme says there are two lives at conception, and the other extreme says there is only one until the baby is completely born.

You're asking an anarchist... An entity using the threat of violence to gain power over others is not good in any situation. A smaller entity having power over a smaller number of people is better than a large entity having that power. Neither situation is good, but one is better than the other.

When it comes to how a group of people can live and interact with each other, there is no one perfect way that works for everyone. Having things dealt with in a more local mannor allows people to try different things to figure out what works for them and it allows an individual to have more say.

Good thing everyone is a property owner under a free society. You own your body.

I know it's hard to get past the idea that there are only two options in this debate. If I wasn't clear: Ron Paul as an individual is pro-life, his policy isn't to dictate his personal pro-life position on everyone else through the federal government. Leave it up to state jurisdiction and you get many choices.

I see where yourself and Gizmoduck are coming from about there being a spectrum of thought as to where life begins - that wasn't really what I was taking issue with. To an anarchist whether the institution imposing coercive influence is local, national or supra-national, abrogating the power of decision making over something as deeply personal to a woman as reproductive rights should be complete anathema.

And I'm not so sure that state government will de facto make better decisions; as blacks in the south fifty years ago and gays in some states today could readily attest. What matters to anarchists I know, myself included, is the mode of organisation and the principles of an institution, not its size. One dude with a uniform and a gun can inflict the same amount of damage to a person whether he's employed by the sheriff's department or the army.

GizmoDuck

2011-07-21, 01:16 AM

To an anarchist whether the institution imposing coercive influence is local, national or supra-national, abrogating the power of decision making over something as deeply personal to a woman as reproductive rights should be complete anathema.

I guess you could also view a pregnancy as a parasitic infection. Sounds daft, but as my Obs and Gynae professor was fond of saying- a foetus is the ultimate parasite. It evades all host defences and feeds off it for 40wks.

In that scenario, it should be within a womans rights to get rid of the parasite, at any gestation. :cool:

MrBoogiejuice

2011-07-21, 01:37 AM

I guess you could also view a pregnancy as a parasitic infection. Sounds daft, but as my Obs and Gynae professor was fond of saying- a foetus is the ultimate parasite. It evades all host defences and feeds off it for 40wks.

In that scenario, it should be within a womans rights to get rid of the parasite, at any gestation. :cool:

Was your Obs Gynae professor called Agent Smith?

Gilby

2011-07-21, 06:47 AM

the power of decision making over something as deeply personal to a woman as reproductive rights should be complete anathema.

You bring forth this idea of a woman having reproductive rights, but you are trying to define when those rights are exercised. Excluding the 1% of abortions (according to some sources) that are the result of a pregnancy due to rape, the other 99% are from consensual sex. You are making the argument that the decision to exercise reproductive rights are made after pregnancy happens. Is it not fair to say that the decision to have sex is consenting to deal with the consequences of that act?

One dude with a uniform and a gun can inflict the same amount of damage to a person whether he's employed by the sheriff's department or the army.

The larger the organization, the many more dudes they likely have.

Gilby

2011-07-21, 06:56 AM

I love this guy.

Obviously Obama is no peace candidate, and has started more wars while continuing the existing ones. It's hard to even count how many wars the US is in now. Have you checked out the Blue Republican [just for a year] (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republicans-an-idea-_b_897405.html) movement? You can't change who the democrat nominee is, but you can help choose the best republican contender, and if war is a huge issue for you, the only choice is Ron Paul, so go to your caucus or primary to get him the nomination.

I hope you can get past the minor issues like abortion (which I view as a divide and conquer issue that will never actually go anywhere), and money (ok, money is a huge issue, but I think you could accept a free market in money).

MrBoogiejuice

2011-07-21, 12:39 PM

You bring forth this idea of a woman having reproductive rights, but you are trying to define when those rights are exercised.[\quote]

I've not tried anywhere to define at what point after conception abortion becomes "wrong", I'm more interested in your your definition of anarchism, and Ron Paul's of libertarianism in relation to what makes a legitimate institution.

[quote]Excluding the 1% of abortions (according to some sources) that are the result of a pregnancy due to rape, the other 99% are from consensual sex. You are making the argument that the decision to exercise reproductive rights are made after pregnancy happens. Is it not fair to say that the decision to have sex is consenting to deal with the consequences of that act?

People ain't always rational actors, so no. No form of birth control is 100% effective and circumstances and desires can change rapidly. I wouldn't ever presume to know the motivations of, or conditions under which, your 99% of women who have non physically coerced sex.

Like I say, I'm not claiming to have an answer as to when abortion is justified, but bemused as to how an anarchist can engage in such moral equivalence between coercive institutions of differing sizes but with equal capacity to exert coercive power over the women within their jurisdictions.

The larger the organization, the many more dudes they likely have.

Well obviously. But that matters not a jot to the guy being shot - the seat of power in anarchism is the individual - whether one or one hundred people are being oppressed the oppression is equally as distasteful to those facing it and should be opposed by anarchists regardless of the numbers engaging in the oppression or at the sticky end of it.

To my mind, government whether local or national, is inherently patriarchal and as such least well informed to make decisions regarding a woman's body. Emma Goldman and Simone De Beauvoir's thoughts on abortion, sex and marriage are those that most influence my personal leanings on such matters.

GizmoDuck

2011-07-21, 01:42 PM

People ain't always rational actors, so no. No form of birth control is 100% effective and circumstances and desires can change rapidly.

A hysterectomy and/or oopherectomy comes pretty close :p

nick

2011-07-21, 02:27 PM

You bring forth this idea of a woman having reproductive rights, but you are trying to define when those rights are exercised. Excluding the 1% of abortions (according to some sources) that are the result of a pregnancy due to rape, the other 99% are from consensual sex.

What is the rational for restricting abortions to cases of rape?

You are making the argument that the decision to exercise reproductive rights are made after pregnancy happens. Is it not fair to say that the decision to have sex is consenting to deal with the consequences of that act?

Why not base policy decisions on what makes the most sense, rather than what a certain segment of the population believes is fair? Although, possibly this is the wrong way to argue my case with a libertarian, hah!

MrBoogiejuice

2011-07-21, 02:36 PM

A hysterectomy and/or oopherectomy comes pretty close :p

Fair point, perhaps I should have prefixed birth control with "non-permanent".

What's an oopherectomy, is it "the snip"?

nick

2011-07-21, 03:27 PM

Fair point, perhaps I should have prefixed birth control with "non-permanent".

What's an oopherectomy, is it "the snip"?

I have a vasectomy. It is not 100% (though unlikely, they can spontaneously heal).

MrBoogiejuice

2011-07-21, 04:18 PM

Have you had children already?

Gilby

2011-07-21, 04:38 PM

I've not tried anywhere to define at what point after conception abortion becomes "wrong", I'm more interested in your your definition of anarchism, and Ron Paul's of libertarianism in relation to what makes a legitimate institution.

My point was that the choice to reproduce happens before conception. If you choose to have sex, you've chosen reproduction as a possible outcome.

People ain't always rational actors, so no.

So if I do something irrational, I don't have to deal with the consequences? If I do something stupid and injure myself, can I just wave a wand and reverse it? In the real world, I could be dealing with an injury for a long time, maybe even the rest of my life.

I'm not claiming to have an answer as to when abortion is justified, but bemused as to how an anarchist can engage in such moral equivalence between coercive institutions of differing sizes but with equal capacity to exert coercive power over the women within their jurisdictions.

I prefer anarchy, but would settle for minarchy if it has a substantially better chance of being achieved any time soon.

The point of having things done by local government instead of national government is that it is not an equal capacity to exert coercive force. The bigger the institution, the easier it is for them to overstep their boundaries into a state of lawlessness like what we have today.

What is the rational for restricting abortions to cases of rape?

I didn't state that position, nor did I ever claim to take the pro-life position. MrBoogiejuice is arguing that abortions should be legal because woman have reproductive rights. I'm arguing that that reason for abortions to be legal doesn't stand because one can choose to not reproduce by not having sex. Rape, by definition, is the exception to choosing to have sex and possibly reproduce, which would be dealt with as the crime that it is.

nick

2011-07-21, 05:28 PM

Have you had children already?

Hell no.

MrBoogiejuice

2011-07-21, 06:52 PM

Hell no.

Hmm, fair play to ye.

Gilby: I just borked up posting a response - sorry, will come back to it laterrr.

johnfoss

2011-07-22, 06:26 AM

If you choose to have sex, you've chosen reproduction as a possible outcome.Ever try explaining that to a pregnant teenager (or her boyfriend/future baby-daddy)? A lot of them don't make the connection until sometime south of baby #2.
I'm arguing that that reason for abortions to be legal doesn't stand because one can choose to not reproduce by not having sex.Abstinence is an effective method of birth control. However, have you ever noticed that it's not a realistic one? I prefer living in this world, on this planet, even though it's filled with people who make bad choices.

BillyTheMountain

2011-07-22, 08:12 PM

If you choose to have sex, you've chosen reproduction as a possible outcome.

If you choose to drink, you've chosen DWI as a possible outcome, and criminally negligent homicide.

Like sex and drinking, there are things one can do before, during and after to severely reduce the likelihood to unwanted events.

If your nation-state is anti-choice, they limit your choices for after actions.

BillyTheMountain

2011-07-22, 08:13 PM

Ever try explaining that to a pregnant teenager (or her boyfriend/future baby-daddy)? A lot of them don't make the connection until sometime south of baby #2.
Abstinence is an effective method of birth control. However, have you ever noticed that it's not a realistic one? I prefer living in this world, on this planet, even though it's filled with people who make bad choices.

Gilby,

Have you taken the abstinence pledge?

Sarah Palin

GizmoDuck

2011-07-23, 12:33 AM

If your nation-state is anti-choice, they limit your choices for after actions.

But should one define what constitutes life only after one is in a position to 'choose'?

Sure people can choose different definitions for when human life begins, but it should be a position you take before pregnancy, or else it will be influenced by whether you want the pregnancy or not.

Do you think it is ethical to 'choose' to kill something you define as a human life? Whether it is at conception or at formation of the neural tube or at birth.

Forget what the state thinks constitutes 'life'. If you take a position on when life begins, are you happy to 'choose' to terminate it after that point?

GizmoDuck

2011-07-23, 12:47 AM

Fair point, perhaps I should have prefixed birth control with "non-permanent".

What's an oopherectomy, is it "the snip"?

'Oo' for 'Oophoron'- Ovary

'-ectomy' to cut out/excise
As in Appendicectomy, Tonsillectomy, Hyseterectomy, Cholecystectomy etc etc

BillyTheMountain

2011-07-23, 03:19 AM

But should one define what constitutes life only after one is in a position to 'choose'?

Sure people can choose different definitions for when human life begins, but it should be a position you take before pregnancy, or else it will be influenced by whether you want the pregnancy or not.

Do you think it is ethical to 'choose' to kill something you define as a human life? Whether it is at conception or at formation of the neural tube or at birth.

Forget what the state thinks constitutes 'life'. If you take a position on when life begins, are you happy to 'choose' to terminate it after that point?

Exactly why it is a sin for a man to "spill his seed," as Onan did. They say you are wasting human life, a bunch of cells with human potential.:D:cool::rolleyes:

GizmoDuck

2011-07-23, 04:00 PM

Exactly why it is a sin for a man to "spill his seed," as Onan did. They say you are wasting human life, a bunch of cells with human potential.:D:cool::rolleyes:

I don't consider a bunch of cells to be human life. Or else we'd be committing genocide everytime we discard a cell culture dish.

BillyTheMountain

2011-07-24, 04:04 AM

I don't consider a bunch of cells to be human life. Or else we'd be committing genocide everytime we discard a cell culture dish.

Or abort a fetus.

GizmoDuck

2011-07-24, 02:01 PM

Or abort a fetus.

A 39 wk foetus then?

If that is just a bunch of cells, then so are you :)

BillyTheMountain

2011-07-24, 04:15 PM

I am.:cool:

They kill amoeba, don't they?:D

feel the light

2011-08-17, 01:19 AM

Watch what Stewart has to about Paul's performance in the straw poll. I am surprised that he didn't mention that Bachman bought 4000 tickets to the event, and gave them to her supporters. You needed a 30 $ event ticket to vote in this poll.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=8676

wobbling bear

2011-08-21, 11:17 AM

some science fiction writers are prescients: in 1955 Robert Sheckley wrote "ticket to Tranai" about Ron Paul's utopias! a must-read :p

feel the light

2011-08-25, 02:24 AM

I don't consider a bunch of cells to be human life. Or else we'd be committing genocide everytime we discard a cell culture dish.

Let me rejack you guys back to the "does life begin at conception" question. An age old favorite. The argument seems to be that every fertilized egg is a unique human life. Not even debatable, this is excepted genetic truth. Also, every sperm is unique, and every egg is unique. That is why you do not look like your brother or sister unless you are twins ( from a single ,split fertilized egg ).

So is uniqueness important ? How can that be ? Only a few of the thousands of eggs a woman has will ever go to term. As an example of a successful sperm, we are all champions. The sperm that made you beat odds of several hundred billion to one. That condom you threw in the trash had a potential of 200 million unique beings. If unique DNA counts in life, you should feel bad if you have sex. It would be like having a lottery where we declare by a vote of near random slime a winner, then shoot billions of losers.

"Ah !" ,the person who believes in "souls" will say , "conception !" This works as a time spot for people who wish to assign a moment of soul insertion. As a pragmatic view of viewing maternity, this view leads to some voters wanting to ban the "morning after pill". They talk a bit like Horton ( from Dr Zuess "Horton hears a who"). Every person is a person, no matter how small.

I think this is incorrect. A tiny piece of unthinking slime is a speck and I wish all it's religious fans would shut up. I'm sure they won't though.

See, even secular atheists can't answer this question with science. I think throwing away fertilized frozen human eggs ( like they used to knock up Octomom) is OK morally. But where to draw the line ? No masturbation, conception , after 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years, 20 years ? Don't laugh. In many cultures it is OK to stone children for disobedience.

In fact, I am unimpressed with the biblical moral guidance given at this point. I am glad I have not been stoned to death. Where in the bible does it make any mention of rights for unborn children ? The awareness of genetic uniqueness seems to be very modern. I get the impression from reading the bible ( so and so knew this girl and then son John married and had next guy who married next bitch who's son was important so we continue story with him though 14 guys) I get the impression that biblical writers knew almost nothing about genetics. They write as if there was no need to follow the woman's linage.

harper

2011-08-25, 02:47 AM

Ron Paul. I'm an American and I support him. So, looks like the answer is yes.

BillyTheMountain

2011-08-26, 11:11 PM

Ron Paul. I'm an American and I support him. So, looks like the answer is yes.

Ron cannot ride a unicycle without Greg's support, holding him up and running alongside him.

BillyTheMountain

2011-08-26, 11:16 PM

See, even secular atheists can't answer this question with science. I think throwing away fertilized frozen human eggs ( like they used to knock up Octomom) is OK morally. But where to draw the line ? No masturbation, conception , after 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years, 20 years ? Don't laugh. In many cultures it is OK to stone children for disobedience.

Right. If you can stone children, you probably cannot masturbate, and if you can masturbate, you probably cannot stone children. I guess no place is perfect:D

It's really about rights of the woman over her body versus rights of the growth inside the woman. If Ron could get pregnant, I bet he'd be pro-choice instead of anti-choice.

harper

2011-08-27, 12:42 AM

Ron cannot ride a unicycle without Greg's support, holding him up and running alongside him.

"This puts a perspective on things well worth bearing in mind." - Raphael Lasar

JJuggle

2011-08-27, 02:23 PM

"This puts a perspective on things well worth bearing in mind." - Raphael Lasar
Would you leave me out of this stupid fucking conversation, please? My basement IS going to flood in the next 24 hours.

harper

2011-08-27, 02:46 PM

Would you leave me out of this stupid conversation, please? My basement IS going to flood in the next 24 hours.

Thanks, Raphael. My philosophy is, if you can find a button, just keep pushing it.

GizmoDuck

2011-08-27, 05:10 PM

Let me rejack you guys back to the "does life begin at conception" question. An age old favorite. The argument seems to be that every fertilized egg is a unique human life. Not even debatable, this is excepted genetic truth. Also, every sperm is unique, and every egg is unique. That is why you do not look like your brother or sister unless you are twins ( from a single ,split fertilized egg ).

So is uniqueness important ? How can that be ? Only a few of the thousands of eggs a woman has will ever go to term. As an example of a successful sperm, we are all champions. The sperm that made you beat odds of several hundred billion to one. That condom you threw in the trash had a potential of 200 million unique beings. If unique DNA counts in life, you should feel bad if you have sex. It would be like having a lottery where we declare by a vote of near random slime a winner, then shoot billions of losers.

"Ah !" ,the person who believes in "souls" will say , "conception !" This works as a time spot for people who wish to assign a moment of soul insertion. As a pragmatic view of viewing maternity, this view leads to some voters wanting to ban the "morning after pill". They talk a bit like Horton ( from Dr Zuess "Horton hears a who"). Every person is a person, no matter how small.

I think this is incorrect. A tiny piece of unthinking slime is a speck and I wish all it's religious fans would shut up. I'm sure they won't though.

See, even secular atheists can't answer this question with science. I think throwing away fertilized frozen human eggs ( like they used to knock up Octomom) is OK morally. But where to draw the line ? No masturbation, conception , after 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years, 20 years ? Don't laugh. In many cultures it is OK to stone children for disobedience.

In fact, I am unimpressed with the biblical moral guidance given at this point. I am glad I have not been stoned to death. Where in the bible does it make any mention of rights for unborn children ? The awareness of genetic uniqueness seems to be very modern. I get the impression from reading the bible ( so and so knew this girl and then son John married and had next guy who married next bitch who's son was important so we continue story with him though 14 guys) I get the impression that biblical writers knew almost nothing about genetics. They write as if there was no need to follow the woman's linage.

That made my head hurt. What exactly are you trying to say?

BillyTheMountain

2011-08-27, 07:59 PM

Thanks, Raphael. My philosophy is, if you can find a button, just keep pushing it.

Would anyone recommend I adopt this philosophy?

harper

2011-08-27, 10:17 PM

Would anyone recommend I adopt this philosophy?

I think someone recommended this to you long ago and you happily adopted it.

BillyTheMountain

2011-08-28, 12:08 PM

I think someone recommended this to you long ago and you happily adopted it.

Yes! It was you who recommended it, at NAUCC and UNICON.:p

I am now a Harperist!:cool:

Got any further tips?:D

BillyTheMountain

2011-09-03, 04:01 PM

Obama is great! ;)

Obama is the greatest!

Obama saved us from what would have been a Bush-caused Depression, and continues to save us from it despite every Republican policy effort to push us toward a Depression.

An economic genius!

harper

2011-09-03, 04:42 PM

Obama is the greatest!

Obama saved us from what would have been a Bush-caused Depression, and continues to save us from it despite every Republican policy effort to push us toward a Depression.

An economic genius!

Absolutely! Obama-rama-ding-dong's half of the $1.4 trillion bank bailout is what really put us on the global economic map! The Bush-Obama tag team is a real, bipartisan double-whammy. When those two get sweaty in the ring, things really start to happen.

feel the light

2011-09-03, 10:49 PM

I voted for Obama. I did not care that he was a Muslim nigger from Kenya. I was impressed with his eloquence, and how he did so well at Harvard Law. "Yes we can", elect a man who will do great things.

So yes we can take single payer off the table. Max insurance company profits. Yes we can prevent importation of generic drugs from Canada. Yes we can escalate the wars and take the military off the table in budget deals. Extend tax breaks for millionaires.Yes we can renominate Obama . But why do we have to? I will refuse to vote for Obama again. What is my motive ? That he is a more articulate lier and corporate shill than the republican? I will stay home.

Ron Paul is an old crank, but a lot of the stuff he goes off on he can't change as president. He is not going to abolish the Fed or end the income tax. He says he will try, but so what, he will fail at that. Could he end the stupid wars and force a balanced budget ? Maybe. I'm not willing to start singing "yes we can", just yet.

Why is there zero energy in the Dem primaries ? Obama is an unpopular disappointment. I remember back when Ted Kennedy almost won the Dem nom from Carter ( a sitting pres) . Now it is Obama being handed the Nom with no discussion of a contest.

I can't see myself voting for Obama again, the proven fake, again. If the Dems hold no real primary, Ron Paul gets my vote over Obama. The other republicans make me puke, but I would turn out to vote for Paul over Obama.

I really wish there was a Dem primary, so we could hold Obama's feet to the fire of his past (turned out to be crap) rhetoric. It seems like it is a given it will be Obama vs Romney or a worse nut job. I bet I don't vote this time.

DSchmitt

2011-09-04, 07:45 AM

ron paul....garb. why would anyone believe this guy? its the same bullshit every runner up for pres says. you really think he's gonna end all 3 wars? end the fed? get real.

feel the light

2011-09-04, 03:35 PM

ron paul....garb. why would anyone believe this guy? its the same bullshit every runner up for pres says. you really think he's gonna end all 3 wars? end the fed? get real.

If prez, of course he will disappoint. However, in his many years in congress, he never voted for an unbalanced budget, or for the popular wars when everyone else was. As prez, it is reasonable to hope he would also not sign such bills if sent to him. The same kind of bills he has consistently voted against his whole career.

Congress is not going to send him bills to end fiat currency or abolish the Fed, so it doesn't matter to me that he would sign them. Saying you wish to outlaw abortion is a must for getting the R nom, because of the fundie vote. However, to outlaw abortion, you must overcome Roe vs Wade. This requires a constitution amendment, or a supreme court 180. It's not really the prez's call, so it is unimportant to me that Paul and I differ on these issues.

Would he use the bully box and veto pen to force fiscal sanity and end the military industrial complex as we have known it ? Maybe. I see no hope with Obama, or any of the other R's. I wish Al Frankin would take a shot. I'm not saying Paul is great, just that he is the best I see in the ring now. If prez, I predict his new name will be Ron Veto. Half the shit congress does will suddenly need 2/3 + votes to pass. Congress doesn't need to be governed by a pianist (Obama), at this time. We need a determined butcher with a gutting knife. Something needs to change, Paul is the only one who speaks of ending the drug war, and the war on terror. The others talk of privatized for profit prisons like that is a good thing. I say let's give this Bully a box to stand on and a knife.

Heretical Rants

2011-09-06, 12:03 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYaujnR_8NE#

Angry man yelling about Ron Paul. Bonus: the yelling is coherent!

feel the light

2011-09-13, 06:02 AM

JJuggle

2011-09-13, 12:41 PM

Check out this vid.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/tea-party-debate-health-care_n_959354.html

It seems like his plan for cancer patients who need 20K $ now, or face death, is to accept responsibility for their decision and go beg at a church. Really ? Can he provide a list of churches that can actually provide such a service ?

To my finely tuned (to the crowd) ears, it was as if he said, knowing he would be eaten by sharks, turned to the Fonz and said "Jump".
Obviously, at least to me, we shouldn't let this guy die. But the question was quite loaded in that this is a healthy 30 year old with a good job who actively and deliberately does not maintain a health insurance policy. Such a person - given how our health care system currently works - should certainly be held responsible for his financial decision and be compelled to whatever extent possible to pay back the expenses for his treatment.

SqueakyOnion

2011-09-13, 06:38 PM

It seems like his plan for cancer patients who need 20K $ now, or face death, is to accept responsibility for their decision and go beg at a church. Really ? Can he provide a list of churches that can actually provide such a service ?

The response would be that few churches provide these kinds of services anymore, directly because the gov't/taxpayers starting picking up the tab. Ending gov't medical handouts would, theoretically over time, 1) make people feel the force of prudence and buy insurance and 2) create a need which private charities will fill, as they have in the past (and which the gov't can encourage via tax incentives).

I don't know that I'd agree with 100% privatized healthcare, but do think that things ought to make a big move in that direction. Patients need to feel the monetary cost of procedures (co-pays are a good start) in order to take responsibility for the procedures' quality, cost, and even necessity.

johnfoss

2011-09-13, 07:48 PM

Ending gov't medical handouts would, theoretically over time, 1) make people feel the force of prudence and buy insurance...But some people aren't ever going to be prudent. Ever. Look around at all the check-cashing stores everywhere. If people were prudent, they couldn't be in business.

My company does not offer a "catastrophic" healthcare plan, because the owner has seen what happens when (young) people, making a very small wage, think they're immortal and end up completely unprepared to handle a major medical expense. So for her employees, long as they work fulltime, they have very good coverage.

On the other hand, a friend of mine hurt his knee the other day (doing MUni). He has catastrophic only, and was dreading even the cost of getting some medical imaging done to diagnose the problem.

feel the light

2011-09-13, 11:30 PM

The life expectancy , and infant mortality rate in the USA is a disaster. Other wealthy ,and even poor (Cuba) nations do much better. In fact, as far as I know , the USA is the only not retarded nation not to be on a single payer health care system. We pay the most per capita in the world on health care, yet get 3rd world results.

Say I get cancer and need 20 K $ now, or my cancer will kill me. If your answer is that I should go beg at your church, I'm saying if your church turns me down, I will die. See, cancer is an atypical philosophical problem, much as is the immanent prospect of death always is. Watch the TV series "Breaking Bad". This "just pay or die" policy will convince many to take up the gun. Holding it in their hands, they will feel hope, life itself. The more people that society puts in this desperate condition, the hotter local news coverage will become. The position of #1 on earth as the country with the most profitable prison system is seeming assured on our present course. We need less people in prison, it is profitable for some , but taxing on the public and a blight on the concept that the USA is a free country.

SqueakyOnion

2011-09-14, 04:42 AM

SqueakyOnion

2011-09-14, 04:55 AM

A copy/paste error resulted in my last post...then the time limit ran out. :( A response will be forthcoming.

SqueakyOnion

2011-09-14, 06:54 PM

But some people aren't ever going to be prudent. Ever. Look around at all the check-cashing stores everywhere. If people were prudent, they couldn't be in business.Systemically bailing people out of bad decisions only incentivizes imprudence, and robs choices of their meaning.My company does not offer a "catastrophic" healthcare plan, because the owner has seen what happens when (young) people, making a very small wage, think they're immortal and end up completely unprepared to handle a major medical expense. So for her employees, long as they work fulltime, they have very good coverage.I think the owner is probably doing a good thing, and it is certainly her perogative to do so. I just don't think participation in a full-coverage government health plan ought to be mandated on the federal level. Private companies certainly ought to offer, or maybe even require, full-coverage plans.On the other hand, a friend of mine hurt his knee the other day (doing MUni). He has catastrophic only, and was dreading even the cost of getting some medical imaging done to diagnose the problem.I don't get the downside here. He bought a catastrophic plan based on his financial situation, and now gets to choose from whom he purchases care, can shop around for the best price/quality, and can even elect to receive no care if he wants to assume that risk. Sure he pays a lot in the short term, but it's probably much less than paying for full coverage long-term.

One can save hundreds, even thousands by paying out-of-pocket, as opposed to full-coverage. Doctors, urgentcare, and hospitals order unnecessary procedures for patients with insurance, hoping to make up some of the money lost from taking Medicare patients; Medicare pays much less, for the same procedure, than private insurers. If you say "yes I have insurance," they will, if plausible, order unnecessary procedures until you ask "how much is it? I'm paying out of pocket." Then they either cancel the unnecessary procedure, or give you the less-than-insurance, out-of-pocket price (unless you really need that procedure). If people felt the cost of their procedures, and asked about price, quality, and necessity, this would put downward pressure on the price of medical services.The life expectancy , and infant mortality rate in the USA is a disaster. Other wealthy ,and even poor (Cuba) nations do much better. In fact, as far as I know , the USA is the only not retarded nation not to be on a single payer health care system. We pay the most per capita in the world on health care, yet get 3rd world results.You're conflating two separate topics. The US's infant mortality is a bit less than other developed nations; that doesn't mean it's equivalent to third world rates, not by a long shot. You didn't even check wikipedia before making your claim. Anyway, infant mortality is more indicative of medical technology, rather than system type, quality, or expense.

On life expectancy, your claim has some traction, in that the US is #34 on the list(Cuba is #38), behind some non-industrialized, but non-third-world nations (seems like mostly island nations). However, you've simply helped yourself to the assumption that healthcare is the biggest factor in life expectancy while ignoring genetics, climate, social factors, diet, and environmental factors.

Also, your claim that we ought to adopt a single-payer system because everyone else has is fallacious and unconvincing. Would you jump off a bridge...?Say I get cancer and need 20 K $ now, or my cancer will kill me. If your answer is that I should go beg at your church, I'm saying if your church turns me down, I will die.That's not my answer, though it might be Ron's. I'm not opposed to there being a safety net for those who slip through the cracks, I just don't think that net should be the norm.

johnfoss

2011-09-14, 08:19 PM

Systemically bailing people out of bad decisions only incentivizes imprudence, and robs choices of their meaning.
I agree with you 100%. Now that Bank of America has been bailed out, they're laying off 40,000 employees. Meanwhile (based on little research), it seems to me that extending unemployment benefits for workers will incentivize them to take their time looking for work. We pay for their extended vacations.
I just don't think participation in a full-coverage government health plan ought to be mandated on the federal level.That's probably the root of the healthcare debate, currently. The current situation with "Obamacare" is that what got passed was so watered down that it might not be much of an improvement on the crappy system we have today. If we were to go all-in, scary as that is, it would probably be better than what we have now, but it's impossible to say.

I think the big problem is how everything is being paid for. Why does an individual get billed $10,000 for a procedure that an insurance company might get billed $5000 for? That doesn't make sense. I think what we need is an open way for the healthcare industry to have true competition, which it doesn't seem to have much of these days. Obviously a single payer system probably wouldn't be that.
Private companies certainly ought to offer, or maybe even require, full-coverage plans.But where does 'ought to' get you? Some people covered, some not. The people with coverage will end up paying for the ones who aren't. It's like uninsured motorist insurance. Explain to me why I'm paying for the other guy again? Oh yeah, because he's never going to.
I don't get the downside here. ...Sure he pays a lot in the short term, but it's probably much less than paying for full coverage long-term.When you say long term, do you mean over a big chunk of his overall lifetime? Presumably during that time he may have other health needs. On this one he was worried he was facing surgery (and that it could be one of those things that can't be fully repaired either). That's crazy-expensive out of pocket. Probably cheaper to fly to Thailand and back and have it done there (I haven't researched this).
Doctors, urgentcare, and hospitals order unnecessary procedures for patients with insurance, hoping to make up some of the money lost from taking Medicare patients...Actually they often order extra tests to be ultra-thorough; through fear of mal-practice. But as non-doctors, how are we to know which ones are really necessary and which are frivolous? I was just reading a big article about this in Consumer Reports. You can ask a lot of questions (when you finally get face to face with your doctor), but how is an average person supposed to know how to interpret the answers?

It's tough all the way around. We have the most expensive healthcare in the world right now, but not even close to the best end results. That much seems to be true. The best way to fix it, it seems to me, is for everyone to pay into something, but something that isn't run by the federal government. And not to have Ron Paul in charge of that program. :)

Gilby

2011-09-15, 07:01 AM

It seems like his plan for cancer patients who need 20K $ now, or face death, is to accept responsibility for their decision and go beg at a church. Really ? Can he provide a list of churches that can actually provide such a service ?

Why do most hospitals have the names of churches? Because most used to be charitable organizations operated by a church. Before government took control over health care, like Dr. Paul mentioned, people were not denied health care and were taken care of by charitable organizations/persons. Under such a society, you wouldn't have to take from others involuntary to pay for the health care of others, overall costs would be lower (because those paying actually care what it costs), and everyone would get critical life sustaining care.

kamikaze

2011-09-15, 09:00 AM

I live in a country with mandatory health care.

I could bore you with long explanations, but the summary will do: it's a good thing to live in such a country.

Zzagg

2011-09-15, 02:16 PM

I live in a country with mandatory health care.
[...] it's a good thing to live in such a country.I SO plusone you!

feel the light

2011-09-15, 03:40 PM

Why do most hospitals have the names of churches? Because most used to be charitable organizations operated by a church. Before government took control over health care, like Dr. Paul mentioned, people were not denied health care and were taken care of by charitable organizations/persons. Under such a society, you wouldn't have to take from others involuntary to pay for the health care of others, overall costs would be lower (because those paying actually care what it costs), and everyone would get critical life sustaining care.

I remember my grandma dying of cancer in the 60's. There was no surgery or chemo costs, for her or anyone. I remember reading George Burn's account of how, when Gracie was fading with heart failure, her only treatment was inexpensive nitro pills, then she died. I read Richard Fineman's account of how his wife died of tuberculosis. These were wealthy, intelligent, well connected people. All they needed for care was a nun to hold their hand in a 12 $/day room, as they died.

We cannot go back to a time when there were no treatments (or costs) for heart disease or cancer. So as science fills the room, the nuns have moved back to the convent. We can't go back to a time when nuns cured serious disease, because they never did. They gave comfort to the dying, and their families, at an affordable rate. But then everyone died.

Also, when did the government take control of health care ? Hospitals today are owned by huge corporations. They ,along with big pharma and insurance groups, control the government. Surely you must have noticed.

BillyTheMountain

2011-09-16, 03:13 PM

Why do most hospitals have the names of churches? Because most used to be charitable organizations operated by a church. Before government took control over health care, like Dr. Paul mentioned, people were not denied health care and were taken care of by charitable organizations/persons. Under such a society, you wouldn't have to take from others involuntary to pay for the health care of others, overall costs would be lower (because those paying actually care what it costs), and everyone would get critical life sustaining care.

In the USA, people go without health care, or get third rate health care, when they have no funds.

Ron Paul wants uninsured children to get no care from the government, so they die. That's why he evaded this question in the debates.

According to Wiki: Currently, the USA has a higher infant mortality rate than most of the world's industrialized nations.[nb 1][9]

In the United States life expectancy is 42nd in the world, after some other industrialized nations, lagging the other nations of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th).[10]

Life expectancy in the USA is 42nd in the world, below most developed nations and some developing nations. It is below the average life expectancy for the European Union.[11][12]

BillyTheMountain

2011-09-16, 03:52 PM

Ron Paul’s Campaign Manager Died of Pneumonia, Penniless and Uninsured
At CNN's Tea Party-indulging debate on Monday, Ron Paul, a medical doctor, faced a pointed line of questioning from Wolf Blitzer regarding the case of an uninsured young man who suddenly found himself in dire need of intensive health care.

Should the state pay his bills? Paul responded, "That's what freedom is all about: taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to take care of everybody—"

He never quite finished that point, letting the audience's loud applause finish it for him. So Blitzer pressed on, asking if he meant that "society should just let him die," which earned a chilling round of approving hoots from the crowd. Paul would not concede that much outright, instead responding with a personal anecdote, the upshot being that in such a case, it was up to churches to care for the dying young man. So basically, yeah. Ron Paul would let him die.

As it turns out, Paul was not speaking purely in hypotheticals. Back in 2008, Kent Snyder — Paul's former campaign chairman — died of complications from pneumonia. Like the man in Blitzer's example, the 49-year-old Snyder (pictured) was relatively young and seemingly healthy* when the illness struck. He was also uninsured. When he died on June 26, 2008, two weeks after Paul withdrew his first bid for the presidency, his hospital costs amounted to $400,000. The bill was handed to Snyder's surviving mother (pictured, left), who was incapable of paying. Friends launched a website to solicit donations.

harper

2011-09-16, 09:42 PM

Back in 2008, Kent Snyder — Paul's former campaign chairman — died of complications from pneumonia. Like the man in Blitzer's example, the 49-year-old Snyder (pictured) was relatively young and seemingly healthy* when the illness struck.

Billy-

I was looking for the reference pointed to by the footnote (asterisk) in your post until I realized, "oh, it's Billy, there are no original thoughts in this post it's been cut and pasted."

The asterisk in the Gawker article from which you cut and pasted referred to a Kansas City Star article in which Snyder's sister claimed that a pre-existing condition made the premiums too expensive.

If you're going to cut and paste fragments of articles that include footnotes, please provide the footnotes in addition. Sloppy work, Billy.

kamikaze

2011-09-16, 10:36 PM

I think in Germany that might be considered plagiarism and copyright infringement.

BillyTheMountain

2011-09-17, 03:55 PM

If you're going to cut and paste fragments of articles that include footnotes, please provide the footnotes in addition. Sloppy work, Billy.

Pleeze.

Who wants to read all that anyway?

You are Ms. Ayelery!!!!!:eek:

Billy

harper

2011-09-17, 05:04 PM

You are Ms. Ayelery!!!!!

Be still, my heart.

Gilby

2011-09-23, 09:33 PM

We cannot go back to a time when there were no treatments (or costs) for heart disease or cancer.

I fail to see how you equate going to a voluntary form of medical care, where people are self reliant and are charitable in helping others, suddenly means we lose 50 years of medical advancement.

Also, when did the government take control of health care ? Hospitals today are owned by huge corporations. They ,along with big pharma and insurance groups, control the government. Surely you must have noticed.

I've always said the US is a fascist government, where the corporations and government work together for the corporations benefit using the authoritarian power of the government over the people. How is more of that better than none of that?

Those corporations conveniently (and repeatedly) omit the one they don't want you to know about. Who is in 2nd:
Poll: Romney leads New Hampshire, Huntsman in third, Perry in fourth (http://news.yahoo.com/poll-romney-leads-hampshire-huntsman-third-perry-fourth-150212964.html)

johnfoss

2011-09-23, 11:33 PM

I fail to see how you equate going to a voluntary form of medical care, where people are self reliant and are charitable in helping others, suddenly means we lose 50 years of medical advancement.I think it's about the math thing. We don't have to lose the 50 years of advancement, the thought is that those older approaches can't afford it. Do you disagree?

I can't help agreeing with you (and or Ron) about the government seeming to be a puppet of large corporations. Corporations that are too large to fail, etc. I wonder if this has always been the case here?

SqueakyOnion

2011-09-24, 12:34 AM

I think the big problem is how everything is being paid for. Why does an individual get billed $10,000 for a procedure that an insurance company might get billed $5000 for? That doesn't make sense. I think what we need is an open way for the healthcare industry to have true competition, which it doesn't seem to have much of these days. Obviously a single payer system probably wouldn't be that.
I think it's the reverse: an individual gets billed $5k, insurance gets billed $10k. Maybe this is regional, but either way, it doesn't make sense.

True competition would require that individual purchasers of health care have an interest in the cost. If all or most health plans are for full coverage with little or no deductible, there is no downward price pressure; why worry about what it costs if someone else is footing the bill?

But where does 'ought to' get you? Some people covered, some not. The people with coverage will end up paying for the ones who aren't. It's like uninsured motorist insurance. Explain to me why I'm paying for the other guy again? Oh yeah, because he's never going to.
That's just it, we tolerate paying for the other guy. This is what has to stop. I'm not saying we turn dying people out of ERs, but rather that there are stronger mechanisms to make them pay it back. People ought not feel entitled to health care; it is a service one needs to pay for. Take responsibility for their decisions to accept risk.

I, for one, do not believe in a human right to healthcare. Maybe a human right to access to healthcare.

When you say long term, do you mean over a big chunk of his overall lifetime? Presumably during that time he may have other health needs. On this one he was worried he was facing surgery (and that it could be one of those things that can't be fully repaired either). That's crazy-expensive out of pocket.
Yes- lifetime risk. He may have other health needs, but they will likely be less expensive than than the total sum of insurance payments. He is insured against the risk of catastrophic illness/injury, for which insurance may pay out more than the total sum of payments. He, presumably, chose a plan based on his financial situation and the amount of risk he was willing to accept; he accepted the risk of possibly having to pay for expensive knee surgery. Maybe he has to liquidate an asset or two to pay for this surgery, or maybe he chooses not to get it. Either way, he owns up to his commitment to accept risk (and an accompanying lower insurance premium) and doesn't try to weasel out of paying.
Actually they often order extra tests to be ultra-thorough; through fear of mal-practice. But as non-doctors, how are we to know which ones are really necessary and which are frivolous? I was just reading a big article about this in Consumer Reports. You can ask a lot of questions (when you finally get face to face with your doctor), but how is an average person supposed to know how to interpret the answers?
Currently many people don't even TRY. Why bother if insurance/gov't covers it 100%? I don't think the average person ever will, and health care dispensaries count on this, in order to over-charge insurance, or the individual, in order to make up for lowball gov't payments via Medicare/Medicaid. Malpractice fears only exacerbate this problem, and further justifies overcharging and unnecessary procedures.

It's tough all the way around. We have the most expensive healthcare in the world right now, but not even close to the best end results. That much seems to be true. The best way to fix it, it seems to me, is for everyone to pay into something, but something that isn't run by the federal government. And not to have Ron Paul in charge of that program. :)
I agree with all of that, but would qualify that not everyone should pay into the same something.

johnfoss

2011-09-24, 12:54 AM

I think it's the reverse: an individual gets billed $5k, insurance gets billed $10k.Actually there are probably lots of examples of both.
If all or most health plans are for full coverage with little or no deductible, there is no downward price pressure; why worry about what it costs if someone else is footing the bill?Right. That's probably the core issue with governments spending our tax dollars. Who cares, when it's someone else's money?

So this downard price pressure has to come from somewhere. This means there has to be competition. Even if it's a single payer system, various entities should be competing to provide the services.

The danger then is when the provider gets too frugal, cuts corners or loses its sense of priorities. When your "Health Maintenance Organization" has less interest in your health than it does in its own bottom line, you have a problem.

sockmonster

2011-09-24, 12:02 PM

We used to have the sort of system you're talking about, where no one brought insurance cards to their doctors, and where the most expensive treatment for anything was, I don't know, penicillin. But the free market saw a potential for profit there, and made insurance companies. Insurances became so powerful and ubiquitous that the uninsured no longer had access to the appropriate care. Which is what we have now.

But you propose a system in which everyone pays out of pocket. That will create a profit motive for insurance companies and/or analogous organizations. Within 50 years, we arrive at the same debate.

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to bill a third party a different dollar amount than would be billed to the patient without a third party. That's why pharmacy $4 generic lists lose them money.

Here's a fun story...

A few years ago, I had a jaw infection that was debilitating to the point that I could not work; I had to have it treated or lose my job. I shopped around for the best medical care I could afford. This caused the infection to spread to my heart where it became a matter of seeking medical care or slowly die a horrible painful death.

The only way I was able to afford even modest emergency treatment was to more or less give up eating for three months. I had to beg for food, which is humiliating and nets you a lot of insults and very little food. I had the predictable result of not eating, which is malnutrition, which caused more tooth loss and another jaw infection.

Gilby

2011-09-25, 12:18 AM

We used to have the sort of system you're talking about, where no one brought insurance cards to their doctors, and where the most expensive treatment for anything was, I don't know, penicillin. But the free market saw a potential for profit there, and made insurance companies. Insurances became so powerful and ubiquitous that the uninsured no longer had access to the appropriate care. Which is what we have now.

In a free market, people would be choosing between many types of insurance or health plans. If many people choose high deductible ones, they become the one who is the decision maker basing their decision in part on the price of health care. This puts the price pressure on the ptients and the doctors to keep costs low. The shift happened when government encouraged companies to provide the healthcare benefit by giving tax advantages to do so, and then mandated employers to provide HMO coverage in 1973. This lead to the shift towards the low deductible insurance where the price for getting healthcare is no longer an issue. Combine that with the medicare/medicaid that came in 1965, which now means the government pays a majority of the health care, and you can see why healthcare costs are very high now, and America has dropped from having the best health care in the world to what we have now.

MuniAddict

2011-09-26, 07:36 PM

:p

SNL RON PAUL 9/24/2011 - YouTube

Gilby

2011-10-08, 03:16 AM

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas! - YouTube

leo

2011-10-08, 11:13 AM

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!
Wow, powerful example. Too bad that (again) you pretty much hear NOTHING about him in foreign media. The title is "will Americans support him", well I have no doubt even the world would support him (if they had the opportunity to hear him).

Funny play on "change(d).gov" which I found the wrong TLD anyway.

BillyTheMountain

2011-10-08, 11:29 AM

This puts the price pressure on the ptients and the doctors to keep costs low.

So many nations are so much better than the USA in terms of their citizens' health care because in the USA, they keep costs low by going without treatment.

BillyTheMountain

2011-10-08, 11:30 AM

Wow, powerful example. Too bad that (again) you pretty much hear NOTHING about him in foreign media. The title is "will Americans support him", well I have no doubt even the world would support him (if they had the opportunity to hear him).

Funny play on "change(d).gov" which I found the wrong TLD anyway.

Most of the world does not want to let children die without proper treatment.

leo

2011-10-08, 11:56 AM

So many nations are so much better than the USA in terms of their citizens' health care because in the USA, they keep costs low by going without treatment.
Or... they treat the cause in stead of the syphtones
(read: less influence of pharmaceutical industry. But that's actually more part of the program of the Pirate Party (http://pirate-party.us/)).

Most of the world does not want to let children die without proper treatment.
Like in Haiti? Yes!
How come the cholera came down from a river, while up there's only a militairy base?
So I agree on "Most of the world does not want to let children die", and the "proper treatment" part I already described above.

feel the light

2011-10-09, 02:41 AM

I fail to see how you equate going to a voluntary form of medical care, where people are self reliant and are charitable in helping others, suddenly means we lose 50 years of medical advancement.

I've always said the US is a fascist government, where the corporations and government work together for the corporations benefit using the authoritarian power of the government over the people. How is more of that better than none of that?

Those corporations conveniently (and repeatedly) omit the one they don't want you to know about. Who is in 2nd:
Poll: Romney leads New Hampshire, Huntsman in third, Perry in fourth (http://news.yahoo.com/poll-romney-leads-hampshire-huntsman-third-perry-fourth-150212964.html)

Maybe you missed it. What about funding non treatment for cancer and heart disease in the 60's ( when there was no treatments), and the fact that there are now (expensive) treatments, did you miss? You missed the barn. Church attendance is at an all time low. No churches in the USA support the idea that they can fund modern health care. They struggle to pay for the health care insurance for their pastors. You can not name a single church in the USA that supports this concept. Just because they are religious does not mean they are insane, or cannot count money. Saying "let them beg at the door of the church", for vital, life saving health care, is insane. Ask any pastor if they have the cash, and they will tell you Ron Paul is nuts.

Gilby

2011-10-09, 03:52 AM

Maybe you missed it. What about funding non treatment for cancer and heart disease in the 60's ( when there was no treatments), and the fact that there are now (expensive) treatments, did you miss? You missed the barn. Church attendance is at an all time low. No churches in the USA support the idea that they can fund modern health care. They struggle to pay for the health care insurance for their pastors. You can not name a single church in the USA that supports this concept. Just because they are religious does not mean they are insane, or cannot count money. Saying "let them beg at the door of the church", for vital, life saving health care, is insane. Ask any pastor if they have the cash, and they will tell you Ron Paul is nuts.

Maybe you missed the part where I said charitable. Charitable actions do not always come from a church. The question here is, do we force people to be charitable by majority vote, or do people voluntarily be charitable with their own time and resources. I prefer the latter.

feel the light

2011-10-09, 04:47 AM

Maybe you missed the part where I said charitable. Charitable actions do not always come from a church. The question here is, do we force people to be charitable by majority vote, or do people voluntarily be charitable with their own time and resources. I prefer the latter.

I am sorry. I forgot. When debating Gilby, he does not believe in taxes. In Gilby world, the rich pour forth, providing all that good needs. Government has no role to play here. Apparently the churches also get a pass now. Vital life necessary treatments do not require funds from the church, rather these funds will come from non existent charities. Or let them die, you know, in case these non existent charities really aren't there. The question that doomed Ron Paul's chances. The question was would Paul prefer a 30 year old die if he had no private health insurance ? His answer was he should beg at the door of a church. Gilby's, and Paul's answer, is if the church door is closed, and non existent charities don't exist, is just fucking take up the gun or die.

There is a reason the USA has the highest prison rate in the world. Making people desperate makes them creative.

feel the light

2011-10-09, 01:41 PM

BillyTheMountain

2011-10-09, 11:28 PM

i admire ron paul’s ideological consistency and often agree with him on issues such as foreign policy and some social policy, but his policy views on health care would leave millions to die because of lack of insurance.
Wolf blitzer then proceeded to directly ask paul if he would let that hypothetical man die. What came next left many people with their collective jaw on the ground. Dozens of tea party supporters yelled “yes” to the question; the response even startled ron paul for a second. I don’t think anyone expected any rational person to actually say “yes” to that question.

we might even change gilby's mind on this issue.

harper

2011-10-10, 12:16 AM

we might even change gilby's mind on this issue.

Who are "we," why do "we" think for a moment that "we" really know Gilby's position on an issue and why, exactly, are "we" so motivated to change Gilby's mind?

BillyTheMountain

2011-10-10, 02:52 AM

Bad questions:mad:

Gilby

2011-10-10, 03:46 AM

Ron Paul has a new campaign manager this time. Not that he wanted to, the man he had in 08, Kent Snyder , got sick and had no insurance, then died. His mom put up the house to cover the bill, but it was to late.

I guess, feeling bad that his manager's mom was stuck for 400 K $, good old Ron started a charity. It worked ! To date it has raised 39 K $ !

I'm not so sure this will work as well for you though Gilby. For one thing, it looks like a zero is missing, and mom is homeless. Also if you are not the campaign manager for Ron Paul, and he does not personally start a charity for you, you may not get such good results.

http://theminaretonline.com/2011/09/21/article19373

Get your facts correct. As is evidenced from the hospital bill, Kent did get health care, and regardless of whether he had insurance or not, he did not survive. Having health insurance doesn't equate to instant miracles happening. His mother is not stuck with $400k to pay off and no, his mother did not mortgage her house, the house she lived in was owned by Kent, so even without the $400k in hospital bills, she would've likely had to move out since the creditors would take claim to the house. The charitable donations would have gone to the hospital, so there isn't much incentive to actually donate to it considering the current fascist state of the healthcare industry.

feel the light

2011-10-11, 01:48 AM

Get your facts correct. As is evidenced from the hospital bill, Kent did get health care, and regardless of whether he had insurance or not, he did not survive. Having health insurance doesn't equate to instant miracles happening. His mother is not stuck with $400k to pay off and no, his mother did not mortgage her house, the house she lived in was owned by Kent, so even without the $400k in hospital bills, she would've likely had to move out since the creditors would take claim to the house. The charitable donations would have gone to the hospital, so there isn't much incentive to actually donate to it considering the current fascist state of the healthcare industry.

Can you provide any links, such as I have, to support your version of facts ? It is widely reported that mom is indeed on the hook. Why did Ron start a charity (on his website) to help her if this is not true ? Is he a dupe?
Your contention that healthcare is best paid for with charities has been backed by no substantiation at all. Ron Paul's own charity, to help his own campaign manager's mother still appears to be crap at this point. If this is his solution to heath care in the USA, he is as done as his ex manager. We must do better as a nation. You should provide links, rather than just spouting crap. If you have facts, you are not linking to them. Why did Ron start this charity ? Mom is not responsible for the debts of her adult children unless she signed on. She signed for a reason, to get her son care. Your contention seems to be she was living off him, and would be homeless anyway. Links please, as well as a redefence of your point that health care can be paid for with charity. That system appears to blow chunks, even if you were Ron's national campaign manager. Even while Ron is in the midst of a campaign where appearances must be upheld. On it's face it appears to be crap. He has jumped the shark.

This is sorta like how Perry was number 1 until he said SS was a ponzi scheme. He jumped the shark to.

critter

2011-10-13, 06:13 PM

Stop telling me what to do.

Vote Ron Paul !!!!!!!!!!!

There's nothing scary if he won. Our static government will keep him at bay... like Bush and now Obama.

Samstoney

2011-10-13, 08:37 PM

Here's the best solution to health care costs I've seen:

Money Room: Social Security Reform - "Grab Life By the Balls" plan - YouTube

Sam

MuniAddict

2011-10-13, 08:52 PM

Here's the best solution to health care costs I've seen:

Money Room: Social Security Reform - "Grab Life By the Balls" plan - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mizl_YxoAko)

Samhaha, I love the onion! :p:p:p:p

Gilby

2011-10-15, 08:40 AM

Can you provide any links, such as I have, to support your version of facts ?

I'm not going to waste my time. If you really care, go do your own research. The link you gave mentioned that he died in 2011, instead of 2008 as is the case, and mentioned a 2 week hospital stay instead of the 2 month stay other more reliable sources report. Do yourself a favor and try to find sources that have personal knowledge of the situation instead of your sources that have your liberal/progressive bias in mind only to make a political statement. The fundraising effort was by a campaign aide to Ron Paul, and not coming from Ron Paul himself.

feel the light

2011-10-15, 03:58 PM

I'm not going to waste my time. If you really care, go do your own research. The link you gave mentioned that he died in 2011, instead of 2008 as is the case, and mentioned a 2 week hospital stay instead of the 2 month stay other more reliable sources report. Do yourself a favor and try to find sources that have personal knowledge of the situation instead of your sources that have your liberal/progressive bias in mind only to make a political statement. The fundraising effort was by a campaign aide to Ron Paul, and not coming from Ron Paul himself.

Kent's charity came up with 9% of the bill. When he died ?, where his mom lives?, how involved Ron was ? is moot to this point. My question is, how do you explain the failure of your idea that "charities and church should fund health care ", with the clear observation that it raised only 9 % in Kent's case ? Don't stress yourself wasting valuable time with links. Answer this yourself.

Q ? Should we have let Kent die without care ? If not , who pays the unfunded 91 % ?

Gilby

2011-10-15, 06:52 PM

Kent's charity came up with 9% of the bill. When he died ?, where his mom lives?, how involved Ron was ? is moot to this point. My question is, how do you explain the failure of your idea that "charities and church should fund health care ", with the clear observation that it raised only 9 % in Kent's case ? Don't stress yourself wasting valuable time with links. Answer this yourself.

Q ? Should we have let Kent die without care ? If not , who pays the unfunded 91 % ?

What should "we" do? I'm not going to say what "we" should or should not do. It's not my place to do so. I'll tell you what "I" would do. Kent was a good man, I didn't know him personally, but he was good for the cause of liberty. If his life depended on people making contributions to give him the healthcare needed for him to survive, I would've contributed. If I was financially unable to contribute, I probably would have encouraged others to voluntarily contribute. That's not the case here though. He got the healthcare needed, but still died. The fund you mention was made after his death. Contributing to it can not bring him back, so for you to try to claim that as a failure of a free market society, especially when we have a fascist society, is simply misguided.

In general, I think people are compassionate. They will support causes and help others. I don't think people would be left to die if the resources and ability were there to save them. Heck, if there is a large enough number in society to have a majority vote to provide it, I think we would have enough people that care that will do it voluntarily. I just don't believe we need to put guns to people's heads to make it happen, which is ultimately what would happen if one doesn't pay into the criminal protection racket (aka. government) that you want to use to force this on everyone.

BillyTheMountain

2011-10-15, 07:05 PM

What should "we" do? I'm not going to say what "we" should or should not do. It's not my place to do so. I'll tell you what "I" would do. Kent was a good man, I didn't know him personally, but he was good for the cause of liberty. If his life depended on people making contributions to give him the healthcare needed for him to survive, I would've contributed. If I was financially unable to contribute, I probably would have encouraged others to voluntarily contribute. That's not the case here though. He got the healthcare needed, but still died. The fund you mention was made after his death. Contributing to it can not bring him back, so for you to try to claim that as a failure of a free market society, especially when we have a fascist society, is simply misguided.

In general, I think people are compassionate. They will support causes and help others. I don't think people would be left to die if the resources and ability were there to save them. Heck, if there is a large enough number in society to have a majority vote to provide it, I think we would have enough people that care that will do it voluntarily. I just don't believe we need to put guns to people's heads to make it happen, which is ultimately what would happen if one doesn't pay into the criminal protection racket (aka. government) that you want to use to force this on everyone.

Gilby,

If he and his family did not pay his medical bills, either someone ELSE paid his bills, or some worker did not get paid.

"If a person works for a dollar he didn't get, some other person got a dollar he didn't work for." --famous graffiti

http://givenoground.org/occupy-the-world/

feel the light

2011-10-15, 07:23 PM

What should "we" do? I'm not going to say what "we" should or should not do. It's not my place to do so. I'll tell you what "I" would do. Kent was a good man, I didn't know him personally, but he was good for the cause of liberty. If his life depended on people making contributions to give him the healthcare needed for him to survive, I would've contributed. If I was financially unable to contribute, I probably would have encouraged others to voluntarily contribute. That's not the case here though. He got the healthcare needed, but still died. The fund you mention was made after his death. Contributing to it can not bring him back, so for you to try to claim that as a failure of a free market society, especially when we have a fascist society, is simply misguided.

In general, I think people are compassionate. They will support causes and help others. I don't think people would be left to die if the resources and ability were there to save them. Heck, if there is a large enough number in society to have a majority vote to provide it, I think we would have enough people that care that will do it voluntarily. I just don't believe we need to put guns to people's heads to make it happen, which is ultimately what would happen if one doesn't pay into the criminal protection racket (aka. government) that you want to use to force this on everyone.

Gilby is running for congress. I can hear him on the box now. "No! we won't let him die ! And unlike my foul opponent (notice him, the guy with a gun to your head !) , I will not tax you !

Non existent charity is what we need ! Gilby in '14. Because un named non existent charities are there. Just believe. Who cares that Paul can't name a single church or charity that supports his math. Just believe you don't have to pay. Awesome message. A bit like watching the Fonz slap a juke box.

Gilby

2011-10-15, 07:23 PM

Gilby,

If he and his family did not pay his medical bills, either someone ELSE paid his bills, or some worker did not get paid.

"If a person works for a dollar he didn't get, some other person got a dollar he didn't work for." --famous graffiti

http://givenoground.org/occupy-the-world/

Yes Billy, you are right, we do live in a fascist society, the bills were paid for by putting guns to people's heads.

Gilby

2011-10-15, 07:32 PM

Gilby is running for congress. I can hear him on the box now. "No! we won't let him die ! And unlike my foul opponent (notice him, the guy with a gun to your head !) , I will not tax you !

Non existent charity is what we need ! Gilby in '14. Because un named non existent charities are there. Just believe. Who cares that Paul can't name a single church or charity that supports his math. Just believe you don't have to pay. Awesome message. A bit like watching the Fonz slap a juke box.

I believe he named the church he was working for at the time in the 1960s.

Again, we do not live in a free market, so yes, many charitable organizations do not exist now since government puts guns to people's heads and now does some of the things a charitable organization would do. Just because certain charitable organizations do not exist now under a fascist society does not mean they will not exist in a free market.

feel the light

2011-11-20, 04:18 PM

Finally getting some experienced advisers on his staff, Ron now is now using the tactic all the other more successful R candidates have been using to get air time. "Say head scratching crap with a straight face". His meteoric rise in the polls is surely immanent.

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/0a03ebddbb/ron-paul-a-bad-lip-reading-soundbite?playlist=featured_videos

BillyTheMountain

2011-11-21, 12:26 AM

Yes Billy, you are right, we do live in a fascist society, the bills were paid for by putting guns to people's heads.

so you are against collections agency, and paying just debts?

feel the light

2011-11-21, 01:17 AM

Ron's strong suit.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-ron-paul-911-20111120,0,5557799.story

feel the light

2011-12-14, 07:48 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/14/andrew-sullivan-roger-ailes-fuck-you_n_1148757.html?ref=politics&ir=Politics

It's possible. The .1% desperately want Mitt or Ginrich. All stops are going to be pulled out to stop Paul. Will unlimited Corporate spending be enough ? I hope Paul wins Iowa. I bet I'll smell all those R flacks shitting their pants, even way down here.

With a strong south east wind to my back, I am feeling brave. We all know Mitrich vs Odem$ will be as dull as politics. Paul must win Iowa.:D

johnfoss

2011-12-16, 04:56 AM

All stops are going to be pulled out to stop Paul.Like people not voting for him in a million years. Is somebody actually worried about this? Or are they trying to divert people for a while so the other conservative candidates get a break from making fools of themselves?

It's kind of sad all around.

feel the light

2011-12-16, 06:28 PM

Like people not voting for him in a million years. Is somebody actually worried about this? Or are they trying to divert people for a while so the other conservative candidates get a break from making fools of themselves?

It's kind of sad all around.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/13/in-iowa-paul-closes-to-within-one-point-of-front-runner-gingrich/

Basically, Paul is tied with Gingrich for first place now. So let's say he wins Iowa . Historically, candidates that get < 5 % in Iowa drop out. The guy who wins gets a 10 ish point boost overnight. So if B, S, H and P drop out before New Hampshire, we have 3 die hard Christians and a foreign policy moderate's supporters to divvy up. If they suddenly take a shine to Mittrich Inc. , I will be surprised.

There have been a few consistencies in this most volatile race in memory.

1 . Not being Romney the rich Mormon is a huge draw. Expect B-S-P supporters to shun Mitt. B,S,P and C all got their time on the top based mostly on not being Mitt. I don't see the "any nut but Mitt" vote evaporating now.

2 Paul's base is consistently devoted. Newt's base just appeared apparently yesterday. Standing on a paper mache sand castle, if he gets rained on in Iowa......

3 Paul is considered a not serious option because the media ignores him. But if he wins Iowa that will change. Fox can order Beck to cry a river, nothing will change. Once Paul's strong appeal on the left (anti war ) becomes clear, there will be one piece of news that can't be suppressed. How does he poll against Obama ? The left is about as happy with Obama as the right is with Mitt. If by the S C primary Obama is out polling Newt and Mitt (like he is now)
, but down vs Paul , it will be over.

I'm not saying it is going to happen. Just that the possibility that Paul could get the Nom and then defeat Obama is much more likely than the upper .1 % who own the media will say. Legalize pot !, destroy the corporate war machine ! If Odem$ has to run against that, he will not carry the left, and will lose to Paul.

Gilby

2011-12-17, 01:25 AM

Ron Paul can win.

Here he is in last night's debate:
Ron Paul Highlights in 12/15/2011 Presidential Debate - YouTube

Nice little exchange between my rep, Bachmann, and who I call my rep, Ron Paul. Of course, Ron Paul was right:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45694263
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/23/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-says-iran-has-threatended-launch-/

feel the light

2011-12-17, 02:50 AM

Nice vid Gilby. A bit to radical, it didn't show up on Huff Post so I missed it.

52% want pot legal. 70% think USA is going bankrupt-down because of crazy wars that enriched the top .1 %.

Paul's idea that we can balance the budget by ending stupid wars (against drugs and trumped up terror ) has extremely strong resonance on the left. Extremely, but Obama boosts war and the police state, and supposedly he is the only choice on the left.

If Paul get's the nom, and the forgotten left (who rarely vote) learns about him, they will discover change that they can believe in. Obama can't win against that.

Trouble is, for the .1% puppet masters, Obama or Mittrich was their guy.

Paul will require 2/3 votes for deficit budgets. He will set records for vetoes. The right will like the idea we won't go bankrupt. The left will love watching him chop the military. In the center, traditionally, is the guy who will be elected president.

Gilby

2011-12-17, 07:05 AM

Obama can't win against that.

https://twitter.com/#!/ppppolls/status/147745181591015424

Gilby

2011-12-17, 10:21 PM

In case you missed him on Leno last night:
Ron Paul & Joe Rogan on the Tonight Show w/ Jay Leno - YouTube

EwokChieftain

2011-12-19, 03:30 PM

Ron Paul says he's for Austrian economics.
With this in mind, I cannot understand why he talks about transforming the Dollar back to gold standard and not about F.A. Hayek's idea of privatising money.
Anyone, even including states, could offer a gold currency... or one backed by ore deposits, or real estate or whatever he or she thinks people will trust in. I find it a most elegant idea.
It would be interesting to see how currencies based on "I say this is worth a (unit), do you agree?" would perform. Surely people would long for that :p

harper

2011-12-19, 05:29 PM

In case you missed him on Leno last night.

I wouldn't say I missed him.

Gilby

2011-12-19, 06:20 PM

EwokChieftain

2011-12-19, 10:34 PM

Oh, that's good. :)

BillyTheMountain

2011-12-20, 07:57 PM

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/19/392178/adultery-dating-website-endorses-gingrich/

BillyTheMountain

2011-12-20, 08:00 PM

Dec 20, 2011 at 9:50 am
Ron Paul thinks this is unconstitutional
Yesterday, two new polls showed Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) emerging as the latest frontrunner in the Iowa GOP presidential caucus. Should the GOP primary electorate ultimately choose Paul as their nominee, however, it would be the clearest possible sign that they want to remake this country into a much meaner and more cruelly indifferent nation than the one nearly all Americans grew up in. Rep. Paul does not simply want to repeal most of the 20th Century, he believes that nearly everything America does is unconstitutional. ThinkProgress compiled video of just a few of Paul’s many claims that basic laws and essential programs violate the Constitution. A short list includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the National Labor Relations Board, the Federal Reserve, income taxes, and even the dollar bill.
To see the new Iowa GOP frontrunner claim that all of these things violate the Constitution — and to learn which seven cabinet departments he also believes are unconstitutional — watch our video here:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/20/392728/paul-everything-is-unconstitutional/

Gilby

2011-12-23, 12:02 AM

feel the light

2011-12-23, 12:33 AM

Yes, pretty much everything the federal government does is unconstitutional. If you believe those are constitutional, then please quote the specific clause in the constitution that authorizes each of those programs.

Still can grasp what's constitutional or not, check out these videos: http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74012

There doesn't need to be a passage in the constitution to authorize a law. That is why there is a congress.

Congress can pass a law that says the sky is green, and even if the prez won't agree, if 2/3 of congress says it's green, the supremes will most likely sing "green, green grows the grass on the sky." If the supremes start singing the blues, then and only then is a law unconstitutional. Until then, the sky shall remain legally green. Reality and legality are best learned as two separate subjects.

You see, according to the constitution, a citizen may read the constitution, but it doesn't mean a spit what they think it means. That's why they call it the supreme court. If the supremes say it is constitutional, it is. Otherwise it ain't, a very simple system clearly spelled out in the constitution.

Anyway, merry christmas Gilby ! Only it will come a little late for you. Santa won't come to Iowa until January and Gilby can't wait.:)

Gilby

2011-12-23, 02:39 AM

There doesn't need to be a passage in the constitution to authorize a law. That is why there is a congress.

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States...

The Congress shall have Power To..."

And it lists those powers.

To say that the congress has unlimited powers to make arbitrary law is pretty naive.

feel the light

2011-12-23, 05:17 AM

"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States...

The Congress shall have Power To..."

And it lists those powers.

To say that the congress has unlimited powers to make arbitrary law is pretty naive.

Is it not obvious that congress does things arbitrarily on whims ? Beer was legal, then illegal, then legal again. Raise a glass and have a toast with the supremes. As long as they say it's constitutional, it is. No one gives a snivel about your interpretation of the constitution. The supremes will decide that for you. Constitution 101. Making pot illegal apparently did not require a constitutional amendment . No particular reason why. Kinda arbitrary. Take it to court if it bothers you.

Gilby

2011-12-23, 02:03 PM

Is it not obvious that congress does things arbitrarily on whims ? Beer was legal, then illegal, then legal again. Raise a glass and have a toast with the supremes. As long as they say it's constitutional, it is. No one gives a snivel about your interpretation of the constitution. The supremes will decide that for you. Constitution 101. Making pot illegal apparently did not require a constitutional amendment . No particular reason why. Kinda arbitrary. Take it to court if it bothers you.

Just because a piece of legislation hasn't been struck down by a court yet doesn't mean that it is constitutional or a legitimate law. Each individual that swears an oath to the constitution is supposed to determine whether legislation is constitutional before executing upon it. While I understand in reality the constitution is dead and no longer adhered to, that does not make something that violates it constitutional.

BillyTheMountain

2011-12-23, 10:20 PM

feel the light

2011-12-23, 11:46 PM

Just because a piece of legislation hasn't been struck down by a court yet doesn't mean that it is constitutional or a legitimate law. Each individual that swears an oath to the constitution is supposed to determine whether legislation is constitutional before executing upon it. While I understand in reality the constitution is dead and no longer adhered to, that does not make something that violates it constitutional.

Everyone here loves you Gilby, I think.:) Please , please accept that many thousands of citizens have convinced themselves not to pay income tax because they believe it is unconstitutional theft . Dodge what you can (an american tradition ), but never fight the IRS in court over the constitutionality of income tax. Hundreds go to prison every year for this reason. Like it or not, you are not a judge, nor will a real judge be impressed with your interpretation of the constitution. Believe it or not, the judge thinks his job is to interpret the constitution according to precedent ( previous opinions of higher courts).
It is not your job to read the constitution and act according to your understanding of it. Judges will think you are saying you have a right to do their job. Then they will do their job (as they understand it), and take your money and or send you to prison. If you can beat this truth, please explain next how you defeat death. Most of us are more convinced about the inevitability of taxes.

BillyTheMountain

2011-12-24, 02:29 AM

http://www.paynoincometax.com/

Luke Collalto

2011-12-29, 10:34 AM

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas! - YouTube

This is awesome.

johnfoss

2011-12-29, 08:26 PM

I saw those little oil derricks in there... we're out of Iraq now (finally). Does Afghanistan have oil?

That video was very well made. But one must be careful with a hands-off international diplomacy policy. I don't know if Ron Paul would agree, but I think we were maybe a little too hands-off during the early parts of both world wars...

BillyTheMountain

2011-12-31, 11:45 PM

Ron Paul supports states removing womens' right to choose.

He wants to abolish Income tax so the middle class is forced to subsidize the wealthy.

He also supports destroying the Arctic in the name of profits for Big Business.

He wants the government to hire lots of soldiers to stand guard along the Mexican border, which the middle class will pay for (because the middle class pays all, the wealthy don't pay their share).

Gilby

2012-01-01, 08:10 PM

Ron Paul supports states removing womens' right to choose.

Oh no, he wants the states to determine the laws regarding murder, which they do in all other cases except abortion right now. Are the states somehow less capable at this specific legal issue than a monolithic federal government? Maybe you should step it up and be advocating that the United Nations should make murder legal instead of leaving it to the federal government.

He wants to abolish Income tax so the middle class is forced to subsidize the wealthy.

Hmmm.... the middle class, and everyone else, keeping the fruits of their labor. How exactly is that subsidizing the wealthy? Isn't giving half the fruits of your labor to all levels of government subsidizing the corporate elite (ie. the wealthy)? Seems like you got this one mixed up.

Do you believe that you own yourself and the fruits of your labor, or does someone else?

He also supports destroying the Arctic in the name of profits for Big Business.

To drill for oil in the arctic in Alaska... or to continue to buy the oil from Canadians, who drill for oil in the arctic... either way, there will be an impact in the arctic.

Ron Paul advocates a free market in energy. Ending subsidies for oil, removing the immunity of environmental damages by energy companies, and removing roadblocks to alternative energy. That's far more environmentally friendly than anything else. Instead of focusing on the small impact of exploring the possibility of drilling on a few hundred thousands acres in Alaska, you should look at the bigger picture.

He wants the government to hire lots of soldiers to stand guard along the Mexican border, which the middle class will pay for (because the middle class pays all, the wealthy don't pay their share).

There are border issues to be taken care of. While Dr. Paul's other positions, like ending the drug war, and ending incentives for illegal immigrants to come to the USA, will end many of the current border issues, it doesn't immediately solve them all. For someone who advocates the income tax, why are you against an expense paid through the income tax? Do you have a double standard and it is completely dependent on the issue for you? If preventing people from illegally immigrating from Mexico to the USA using soldiers at the borders is cheaper than making the taxpayer pay for their education, healthcare, etc. when they are here, then how is the middle class paying more for this?