Republican voters only! Caucus time, who gets your vote? (Ron Paul, house of representatives, unemployment)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If Ron Paul is able to raise so much money, and does so well in every internet poll on here, I hope people vote for him. I like him alot too. With all the money he has raised, he will be able to stay in the race probably well into Feb even if he doesnt make a good finish in any early state race. Ron Paul at least has that going for him.
regarding ron paul, i am just honestly wondering whether people truly believe that reducing the federal government so much (and giving administrative license more to states and individuals), cutting taxes so much, and giving so much to the individual (as ron paul seems to stand for) is reasonable? can you think of times when states have not been able to or may not be able to do what the federal government helps them with? can you think of when states' standards might be helped by a more national perspective? i personally wonder about things like military/security, education standards, intelligence, health care, environmental health, corporate behavior, economics, etc. - many of which wind up having repercussions across state boundaries as people, pollutants, politics, etc. aren't confined to state boundaries - that seem to need taxes and federal expertise (when it exists...so address that? would be my own question), as well as nation-wide consensus and action.
as a simple example, his perspective almost seems to me like saying "ok, we don't need corporations or federal government any more - we will build our own cars, airplanes, and roads...as individuals".
honest question - i would interested to hear your answers.
^^^Eliminating the income tax wouldn't do much to damage national revenue assuming we stop throwing our money oversees as fast as we can. Like Dr. Paul himslef has argued, without the income tax The US will still have as much revenue as it did in 1997, throug other taxes and revenue sources. We're just spending that much more money in the US's adventures overseas. (We currently occupy 130 countries world wide.)
Also, in cutting power to the federal gov't it wouldn't need as much money to function. Like the war on drugs for example, billions of dollars on spent on it, yet drugs are just as big of problem now as ever, if not more.
Education has been nationalized by the Bush administration, yet quality hasn't gone up and you have a lot of disgruntled teachers. The US functioned without a Department of Education until around the 1950s, since then test scores have steadily dropped especially in the 80's and 90's. Alas, the feds only pay for about 10% of overall eduaction costs in the state. The rest already comes from the states.
A national conscensus isn't needed among the states, as all states share a common interest by nature. If California enacts a law that isn't liked by people in Idaho, then it really is no big deal because they are different states. Like abortion, a natioanl concensus will never be made Liberal states are all for it while Conservative states are not. They need not agree on this issue, as people in their respective states will be satisfied. This applies to virtually every issue.
As for healthcare, a Universal system just doesn't work and isn't practical in a nation of 300 million. Our quality of healthcare is second to none because of our free market healthcare system. In Canada you sign up on a waiting list to see a doctor, ditto Britain. When you see a doctor, you see a doctor, not a cardiologist, a nuerologist or any other specialist that knows specifically how to treat your problem. Almost all new drugs created in the world come from the US because of a for profit system. Also many Canadians actually visit the US for doctaors because of our superior care.
Intellegence, why not axe it? It didn't stop 9/11, it said Iraq had WMDs, and now that they say Iran has no nuclear weapons program Bush ignores them. It doesn't really seem to be doing much good now does it? Now, I know that completely getting rid of it is unrealistic. But what needs to be done is scale back the shear size of it. The Dep. of Homeland Security is the largest beuracracy of them all. Instead of spying on our own people, we need to enforce our borders.
Which brings us to our military, with our military out of many countries in the world, we can pout them on the border, as Dr. Paul suggests. This will stop the flow of illegal Mexicans and the ever present danger of terrorist sneaking through. As for terrorist, it is not realistic that they can invade our shores like a conventional army. What must be doen here is limit visas to the middle east and if someone overstays their visa then the local authorties need to arrest and deport. If we keep tabs on immigration we can never be attacked again. (Unless Britain gets a beef)
Immigration, if the welfare programs that illegals thrive on were simply taken away, and laws were enforced on employers who hire them, (Dr. Paul does believe in some laws, contrary to what the haters say) it simply wouldn't be economical for them to stay. This saves more money from welfare, and saves us the trouble and expense of deporting 20 million people.
Economically the nation prospers when the gov't simply butts out. More gov't regulations hinders economic growth. Take Japan for example, they have no corperate tax and have one of the strongest economies in the world, they have a low poverty and unemployment rate. Dr. Paul is not anti-corperate, he just doesn't believe in coperate welfare, or taxation of corperations, so it is a ridiculus notion that we would have to build our own cars, etc.
I wonder what you mean by federal expertise. It only makes sense that someone who lives in a state, works for a state,and understands the states issues can fix a problem in a state better than some one from New York, living in DC, trying to solve issues in Montana. Just because you don't work for the feds and might live in a cabin doesn't make you any less credible to solve a local problem, if anything it makes you more credible.
thank you. this is helpful. may i play devil's (or angel's, depending on your perspective ) advocate for a moment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinFromBoise
^^^Eliminating the income tax wouldn't do much to damage national revenue assuming we stop throwing our money oversees as fast as we can. Like Dr. Paul himslef has argued, without the income tax The US will still have as much revenue as it did in 1997, throug other taxes and revenue sources. We're just spending that much more money in the US's adventures overseas. (We currently occupy 130 countries world wide.)
by "occupy", what exactly is meant? in other words, Dr. Paul hopes to take a more isolationist stance, including military and perhaps diplomacy/Consulates/embassies? including humanitarian assistance, as well? i know the libertarian stance might (depending on the libertarian, i suppose) be to not involve ourselves so much with humanitarian issues, and let "the strong survive", though it seems pretty easily arguable that can be an overly simplistic stance.
Also, in cutting power to the federal gov't it wouldn't need as much money to function. Like the war on drugs for example, billions of dollars on spent on it, yet drugs are just as big of problem now as ever, if not more.
what about the interstate system? what about things like the national guard or military? even if one doesn't agree with having an extensive military, the national guard and things like FEMA are federal, and states and individuals benefit from the federal help (when executed well).
Education has been nationalized by the Bush administration, yet quality hasn't gone up and you have a lot of disgruntled teachers. The US functioned without a Department of Education until around the 1950s, since then test scores have steadily dropped especially in the 80's and 90's. Alas, the feds only pay for about 10% of overall eduaction costs in the state. The rest already comes from the states.
what about scholarships? what about setting a national tone that promotes scholarship? i agree that states and local taxes are more responsible for education (public schools) now...and that this results in some significant disparities of awareness.
A national conscensus isn't needed among the states, as all states share a common interest by nature.
Alabama shares common interests with NY? California shares common interests with the international community? how individual states impact such communities reflects back on how those communities treat the nation. for example, if a particular state pollutes, or if many states pollute, or if there is a region that extends itself economically or politically in an unfavorable way (to the world community), other regions within the US may have to pay the price, so to speak, no? people can probably think of fairly recent examples of places paying a price for the image of the american society on a world stage.
If California enacts a law that isn't liked by people in Idaho, then it really is no big deal because they are different states. Like abortion, a natioanl concensus will never be made Liberal states are all for it while Conservative states are not. They need not agree on this issue, as people in their respective states will be satisfied. This applies to virtually every issue.
so, don't you think that something like the federal supreme court, for example, has value? this begins to sound like partitioning into 50 nations, none of which is as strong as the original, potentially, as the economics of California, e.g., have some bearing on the health of the national economy, right?
As for healthcare, a Universal system just doesn't work and isn't practical in a nation of 300 million. Our quality of healthcare is second to none because of our free market healthcare system. In Canada you sign up on a waiting list to see a doctor, ditto Britain. When you see a doctor, you see a doctor, not a cardiologist, a nuerologist or any other specialist that knows specifically how to treat your problem. Almost all new drugs created in the world come from the US because of a for profit system. Also many Canadians actually visit the US for doctaors because of our superior care.
actually, our quality of healthcare may not be second, it may be more like 20th. there are many other developed countries that arguably have stronger health care, and that health care is more nationalized, right? i think of norway, iceland, etc.. and healthcare differs widely throughout this country as it stands today. for example, in Colorado, things like mental health services and education have suffered relative to much of the rest of the nation since the enactment of TABOR, the "tax payers bill of rights" where revenue is redistributed to people that don't like paying the taxes rather than folded into such social institutions.
Intellegence, why not axe it? It didn't stop 9/11, it said Iraq had WMDs, and now that they say Iran has no nuclear weapons program Bush ignores them. It doesn't really seem to be doing much good now does it? Now, I know that completely getting rid of it is unrealistic. But what needs to be done is scale back the shear size of it. The Dep. of Homeland Security is the largest beuracracy of them all. Instead of spying on our own people, we need to enforce our borders.
is axing intelligence the answer? or is bolstering it, making for a more effective set of intelligence agencies by, perhaps, better running them? i think axing the intelligence community could be VERY scary, don't you? because homeland security or the FBI, for example, have dropped the ball (according to some) in the recent past, it doesn't seem to me that they should just be dropped themselves. in other words, i can agree that "shear size", or confounding bureaucracy can be problems, but largely cutting them seems like a ticket to some SERIOUS problems many of us can easily imagine, i'd think. granted, it might be equally as scary if the intelligence world continues delving deeper and deeper into individual lives...
Which brings us to our military, with our military out of many countries in the world, we can pout them on the border, as Dr. Paul suggests. This will stop the flow of illegal Mexicans and the ever present danger of terrorist sneaking through. As for terrorist, it is not realistic that they can invade our shores like a conventional army. What must be doen here is limit visas to the middle east and if someone overstays their visa then the local authorties need to arrest and deport. If we keep tabs on immigration we can never be attacked again. (Unless Britain gets a beef)
i can agree that our miltary might be rather overextended, rather overpriced, and "putting the stick in the hive" sometimes. we can certainly be attacked even while keeping better tabs in immigration (which does not seem like a bad idea, i agree), no? it's a global world now. there are ICBMs. there is satellite technology and incredible military technology (see china, russia, pakistan, india, even france, etc.). i would love to see the need for military technology stationed elsewhere go away, for the extension of that stick in the international hive be curbed, but do you think just shoring the borders will do it? for example, if other militaries are tapping into our technology that's off our shores (satellites, underwater telecommunication lines, etc.), how does shoring the borders and dropping the rest address that?
Immigration, if the welfare programs that illegals thrive on were simply taken away, and laws were enforced on employers who hire them, (Dr. Paul does believe in some laws, contrary to what the haters say) it simply wouldn't be economical for them to stay. This saves more money from welfare, and saves us the trouble and expense of deporting 20 million people.
is it possible that some of the immigration policies might stand for some diplomatic reasons? after all, we basically took the southwest from mexico not too long ago (centuries are not that long on the world historical time line). what might shutting them out do to them and their allies, and so our own interests?
Economically the nation prospers when the gov't simply butts out. More gov't regulations hinders economic growth. Take Japan for example, they have no corperate tax and have one of the strongest economies in the world, they have a low poverty and unemployment rate. Dr. Paul is not anti-corperate, he just doesn't believe in coperate welfare, or taxation of corperations, so it is a ridiculus notion that we would have to build our own cars, etc.
really? japan definitely does not have one of the strongest economies in the world, for one. i can agree with Dr. Paul's corporate welfare stance, but to noot tax them? they're considered "people" (the corporations themselves) and afforded the rights and amenities of people...why shouldn't they pay for them?
as for the building our cars analogy, that was just an analogy. where do we draw the line? it seems to me that bringing it so close to every person for themselves (including corporations) could be dangerous - there is clearly some benefit for societies' banding together, and that banding to be well managed, or well governed, no?
I wonder what you mean by federal expertise. It only makes sense that someone who lives in a state, works for a state,and understands the states issues can fix a problem in a state better than some one from New York, living in DC, trying to solve issues in Montana. Just because you don't work for the feds and might live in a cabin doesn't make you any less credible to solve a local problem, if anything it makes you more credible.
the federal government, if appropriately effected, is populated by people and agencies whose job it is to be expert in world affairs, in national affairs, and in regional affairs and how these things interact, and then to represent the people that put them there and pay their salaries. not unlike how it ought to work with you and your employer if you're doing your job (otherwise you get ousted eventually, right?). many of the rest of us have other jobs to do - there is only so much time in the day, and the media and some local or state run schools, e.g., are not necessarily effective in educating the public, right? the house of representatives is about people from places representing those places, while considering the bigger picture with even more awareness (they're THERE and it's their job, after all) than the average citizen might be able to. "delegates" of sorts; it's somewhat up to the people to get educated (with some help from a solid education system, e.g.) about whom they elect rather than voting for the friendliest face, no? can't blame the federal government for your own ignorance, i suppose, unless the federal government has something to do with cheating you of your education, i guess. as for states' interests, these go back to the idea that in this world at the least, not only can they pool their resources in a national way ("power in numbers", in some senses, if effectively executed), but their actions influence the rest of the world often times, and the rest of the world responds to a nation, often times, not to a state, or a citizen, right? and if the world DOES respond by acting on a particular citizen or state, it seems that that citizen or state might want to have some of the resources of the collective nation, especially if they are paying the price (via an act of other nations, societies, the world, etc.) of what others within the nation (the US, in this case) have done to the rest of the world philosophically, economically, militarily, etc, or how they are perceived, etc. by the rest of the world, right?
If there is anything I missed, ask again.
thanks again. in the end, it does seem like people should be more empowered, but i don't know that the federal government, when well run, of as little use as you seem to imply it is.
Last edited by hello-world; 12-29-2007 at 03:33 PM..
Apparentlt Fox news ( fair and balanced? ) apparently is excluding the only anti-war candidate.
Why?
After the polls close and the troops start back to the states, What in the world would fox news have to report.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) advocate for a moment?
