Supposedly RP just dropped $2 mil to air some TV ads. Here's hoping!
Supposedly RP just dropped $2 mil to air some TV ads. Here's hoping!
Here's not hoping!
I love the way conversations go, lol.
Random Person: "Government needs to stop spending so much money!"
Ron Paul: "I'm gonna cut this budget down to a constitutional minimum and stop spending so much money."
Random Person: "Ron Paul is a nutjob!".
I suppose I should applaud him for having a plan. Reading it makes me shudder for the population of america who depends on some of those programs he's cutting. Charity won't cut it when you've got millions suddenly starving and no backup for them.
DoctorBlade wrote: I suppose I should applaud him for having a plan. Reading it makes me shudder for the population of america who depends on some of those programs he's cutting. Charity won't cut it when you've got millions suddenly starving and no backup for them.
Who's going to starve and why? I didn't think there were government bread lines anymore. Does the TSA operate them? The Department of the Interior?
ReverendDexter wrote: I love the way conversations go, lol. Random Person: "Government needs to stop spending so much money!" Ron Paul: "I'm gonna cut this budget down to a constitutional minimum and stop spending so much money." Random Person: "Ron Paul is a nutjob!".
Couldn't have said it better myself.
DoctorBlade wrote: Charity won't cut it when you've got millions suddenly starving and no backup for them.
The only people that will truly starve are the ones who would willingly put themselves in that situation (drug addicts, for instance). Nobody who wants to live has to starve in North America.
Javelin wrote: Supposedly RP just dropped $2 mil to air some TV ads. Here's hoping!
Wonder how many ads/time that gets you. He got $2mil on the "Black This Out" 24hr money bomb donation drive earlier this week.
The bottom line is that the majority of the people still want their Social Security, their Medicare and their public schools even though a vocal minority doesn't. Libertarianism has been around for years. If people wanted it, we would already have a Libertarian President, and Libertarians controlling both houses of Congress, and Ron Paul would be leading everybody in the polls.
We don't and he isn't. End of story.
HiTempguy wrote: The only people that will truly starve are the ones who would willingly put themselves in that situation (drug addicts, for instance).
And thier families...
i havent sourced this myself, so consider it suspect, but i heard it on a program benign of most political consideration.
The single poverty level in the usa is $11,000 annually. If you make that mush money, you make more than %79 of the world. You are among the %21 richest people on earth.
Snowdoggie wrote: The bottom line is that the majority of the people still want their Social Security, their Medicare and their public schools even though a vocal minority doesn't. Libertarianism has been around for years. If people wanted it, we would already have a Libertarian President, and Libertarians controlling both houses of Congress, and Ron Paul would be leading everybody in the polls. We don't and he isn't. End of story.
A lot has changed in the last 30+ years since he ran as a lib. And a few notable things haven't. pretty closed-minded to suggest otherwise.
Ron Paul didn't say he'd end social security he said he'd let those 25 and younger opt out. I suppose he's relying on the 26 and older to keep it solvent. Also doing away with the dept of education doesn't "End" public education, it ends the federal oversight. Its only existed since 1979 and would argue education hasn't gotten better its gotten worse.
dankspeed wrote: Ron Paul didn't say he'd end social security he said he'd let those 25 and younger opt out. I suppose he's relying on the 26 and older to keep it solvent. Also doing away with the dept of education doesn't "End" public education, it ends the federal oversight. Its only existed since 1979 and would argue education hasn't gotten better its gotten worse.
If Ron Paul isn't against public education he isn't a true libertarian. A libertarian would let the private sector take care of that. I am in favor of getting rid of the Department of Education. It is duplicative of what the states already have. We need to cut the government we don't need. We can get rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac too. We don't want to subsidize medical care or education yet we want to subsidize upper middle class people buying mini-mansions that they can't afford. I know that people in the building industry will be screaming about cutting this, but no other country in the world has this kind of socialism.
bluej wrote:Snowdoggie wrote: The bottom line is that the majority of the people still want their Social Security, their Medicare and their public schools even though a vocal minority doesn't. Libertarianism has been around for years. If people wanted it, we would already have a Libertarian President, and Libertarians controlling both houses of Congress, and Ron Paul would be leading everybody in the polls. We don't and he isn't. End of story.A lot has changed in the last 30+ years since he ran as a lib. And a few notable things haven't. pretty closed-minded to suggest otherwise.
The polls haven't changed in favor of libertarians or Ron Paul yet and 'straw' polls don't count. It's pretty unrealistic to suggest otherwise.
madmallard wrote: The single poverty level in the usa is $11,000 annually. If you make that mush money, you make more than %79 of the world. You are among the %21 richest people on earth.
Yeah? Cool. Where can I rent a mud hut? I mean, that's a cool fact, I guess, but do you think you can live on $11k a year in the U.S.? You'd be homeless in the city I live in.
dankspeed wrote: Ron Paul didn't say he'd end social security he said he'd let those 25 and younger opt out. I suppose he's relying on the 26 and older to keep it solvent. Also doing away with the dept of education doesn't "End" public education, it ends the federal oversight. Its only existed since 1979 and would argue education hasn't gotten better its gotten worse.
Well, I mean, how does that work? If people don't have to pay in, where will the money come from. So, he either wants to kill it or make it a burden on the general fund which already doesn't have enough money.
And just a little quibble 'cause it bugs me. Yeah, dept. of ed since '79, and yeah, schools are worse. But you're suggesting a causal relationship where none exists. I'm old enough to remember '79. America is worse. More drug addicts, more teen pregnancy, more gang members, more parents who couldn't care less about their kids, more kids who don't even speak English. Compulsory education means all those kids show up at school. You expected the test scores to get better? That's not even getting into more school vouchers and more parents who do give a rats ass sending their kids to private school leaving a higher percentage of the difficult students.
And what really chaps my hide is blaming the teachers for it and cutting their pay. Like they're supposed to wave a magic wand and make a kid with two alcoholic, drug addicted parents all of a sudden turn into an honor student.
If you're looking for someone to blame for the state of affairs in America since '79, ask yourself who was elected in 1980.
fast_eddie_72 wrote:madmallard wrote: The single poverty level in the usa is $11,000 annually. If you make that mush money, you make more than %79 of the world. You are among the %21 richest people on earth.Yeah? Cool. Where can I rent a mud hut? I mean, that's a cool fact, I guess, but do you think you can live on $11k a year in the U.S.? You'd be homeless in the city I live in.
You could find an apartment on that income in the city that I live in, but your neighbors will be dealing drugs and you won't want to be caught outside after dark there.
Javelin wrote: Who's going to starve and why? I didn't think there were government bread lines anymore. Does the TSA operate them? The Department of the Interior?
They're called EBTs now. At one time food stamps. And there are 45 million people in that bread line.
bastomatic wrote:Javelin wrote: Who's going to starve and why? I didn't think there were government bread lines anymore. Does the TSA operate them? The Department of the Interior?They're called EBTs now. At one time food stamps. And there are 45 million people in that bread line.
Yeah, and ALL of them are in front of me at the grocery store using it to buy chips and "cash out" so then they can spend their own money (which always is produced in a giant wad of bills) on the beer and cigs. Pathetic.
fast_eddie_72 wrote:dankspeed wrote: Ron Paul didn't say he'd end social security he said he'd let those 25 and younger opt out. I suppose he's relying on the 26 and older to keep it solvent. Also doing away with the dept of education doesn't "End" public education, it ends the federal oversight. Its only existed since 1979 and would argue education hasn't gotten better its gotten worse.Well, I mean, how does that work? If people don't have to pay in, where will the money come from. So, he either wants to kill it or make it a burden on the general fund which already doesn't have enough money. And just a little quibble 'cause it bugs me. Yeah, dept. of ed since '79, and yeah, schools are worse. But you're suggesting a causal relationship where none exists. I'm old enough to remember '79. America is worse. More drug addicts, more teen pregnancy, more gang members, more parents who couldn't care less about their kids, more kids who don't even speak English. Compulsory education means all those kids show up at school. You expected the test scores to get better? That's not even getting into more school vouchers and more parents who do give a rats ass sending their kids to private school leaving a higher percentage of the difficult students. And what really chaps my hide is blaming the teachers for it and cutting their pay. Like they're supposed to wave a magic wand and make a kid with two alcoholic, drug addicted parents all of a sudden turn into an honor student. If you're looking for someone to blame for the state of affairs in America since '79, ask yourself who was elected in 1980.
My point with saying it's only existed since '79 is to say it's not this great thing we have to preserve because it's been around forever and is part of americas history. My wife is a teacher and I do feel they deserve fair pay but doing away with a federal dept. thats sole purpose is for oversight and has over stepped it's usefulness is not saying I don't believe in public education . I believe it should be handled at a state and local government level. I think teachers know best how to teach. States rights!
fast_eddie_72 wrote: If you're looking for someone to blame for the state of affairs in America since '79, ask yourself who was elected in 1980.
That's more than a bit selective and myopic, Eddie.
There are a few decades of governmental policies and influences that laid the foundation for what happened later. One can try to argue that "things" may have been different (better or delayed) after '79, but any/all points are little more than opinion and speculation.
You'll need to log in to post.
