Ron Paul lovers and haters...
-
Spread the word!
-
bubba;194654 wrote:
I think this guy is the only good person even running...I agree 100%
-
FG2;194641 wrote:
Spread the word!You edited that Jason? Nice work! Keep it up.
-
So that means no more free money to go to school. Get a loan. I had to. No Pell Grants. Of course he also wants to significantly reduce income taxes as well as reducing gov't spending, so your money will go further.
-
Cutting Federal Aid, not all financial aid. Besides, it's not real likely he would get that through either way.
-
"thus spake SmitEvo"
Why?
Too many people go to college that don't really need to be there, driving the cost up, and making college attendance practically compulsory for many types of jobs.
I dont think it is correct to assume that everyone ought to go to college, especially when most people treat it like "High-School 2: No Parents", and most people do it to try and get a higher pay check. If people are after vocational training, there should be other optinos for that (trade schools, etc).
A university education isn't a very good deal for most people. They go into debt over it (massively), and they don't do anything meaningful with what they learned. Hell, I've got a second BS in Math and I can barely remember how to integrate. I work in an allegedly "high tech" field.
Federal aid means that society is investing in college educations for "everybody". That's a shitty investment because its driving the costs up and our college educated workforce isn't really all that much better off for having gone to college. At the same time, the glut of students means that in addition to prices going up, quality of education goes down.
In Germany there's free post-secondary education for everyone, but based on yoru test/academic scores / other stuff, lots of people go to trade schools instead of a general purpose university program. People should certainly be free to study what interests them.. and that's what a universrity should be for... but i don't feel like footing the bill for yet another women's studies department.
-
I don't think he has a chance in Hell of getting the nomination. It'd be nice, and I would actually most likely vote for him if he did (zomg I'd vote republican!@), but nobody I've talked to knows who he is. Sure he's a big hit online, but that's by far the minority of voters. Most people watch the news to decide who to vote for, and they hardly ever cover him.
If he can somehow jump into the spotlight on TV and in ads, I'd say there is a good risk he would win. I just can't see that happening though.
-
HandoEX;194715 wrote:
You edited that Jason? Nice work! Keep it up.Yup, thanks! I wish I was more fluid with more advanced editing programs, but this gets the point across I think. Making it was also the best thing thus far for me, as far as learning about Ron Paul. Searching for the perfect quote, means reading a bunch first until you find the right one... He is a very good man, and unfortunately, no president will ever be perfect for EVERYONE. You have to look at the big picture and where our government has been headed for the past 10-15 years. We need a drastic change...
www.teaparty07.com
www.ronpaul2008.comJason
-
Financial Aid helps people goto school who otherwise could not afford it. Either by grants or loans. So yes your right that not everyone should goto college, but everyone should have an equal chance. Rich or Poor. Without financial aid less people would attend college and our nations workforce would not be as qualified in certain fields compared to other countries. Who knows....maybe we would even start hiring people from other countries because of underqualified workers. Also all government aid, payments, grants stimulates to economy a lot more than you guys think. The mulitiplier effect is tremendous and has an impact. Maybe not as much as back in the day but still impacts our economy. These two positives outweigh any argument that Financial Aid should be abolished.....
I also am starting to like Ron Paul.....
-
amicheze;194730 wrote:
I don't think he has a chance in Hell of getting the nomination. It'd be nice, and I would actually most likely vote for him if he did (zomg I'd vote republican!@), but nobody I've talked to knows who he is. Sure he's a big hit online, but that's by far the minority of voters. Most people watch the news to decide who to vote for, and they hardly ever cover him.If he can somehow jump into the spotlight on TV and in ads, I'd say there is a good risk he would win. I just can't see that happening though.
He was just on Jay Leno, and although he is strong only on the 'internet', the 'internet', the internet donated 4.3 million in 24 hours to his cause. That have NEVER happened before.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKZmIzEMUN8
Him getting nominated is not impossible, nor is it something anyone should discount. He is snowballing......
-
SmitEvo;194733 wrote:
Financial Aid helps people goto school who otherwise could not afford it. Either by grants or loans. So yes your right that not everyone should goto college, but everyone should have an equal chance. Rich or Poor. Without financial aid less people would attend college and our nations workforce would not be as qualified in certain fields compared to other countries. Who knows....maybe we would even start hiring people from other countries because of underqualified workers. Also all government aid, payments, grants stimulates to economy a lot more than you guys think. The mulitiplier effect is tremendous and has an impact. Maybe not as much as back in the day but still impacts our economy. These two positives outweigh any argument that Financial Aid should be abolished.....I also am starting to like Ron Paul.....
I think you just nailed it pretty well :icon_salut:
2005 Mercedes-Benz C240 4Matic
1993 Mazda Rx-7 Twin Turbo (sold)
-
DaveH;194759 wrote:
Ron Paul is an interesting fellow and I like a fair amount of his ideas. But, he is far too radical in a lot of his opinions to get the nomination. Not gonna happen.I understand your feelings on some of his opinions, and I am sure that some people look at his 'quick quotes' and dismiss him completely because of them. "End the IRS" is one that sticks out to me. Although I don't agree with the IRS, I think he would be assassinated before that would happen. But as far as dismissing him completely because of his 'radical' thoughts... My question to you would be, is George Bush's actions/reactions/thoughts less radical? The USA felt he was the right fit for Washington, and if you ask me (obviously my opinion is a given) his actions on most accounts is more radical than the idea of ending the IRS!
-
SmitEvo;194733 wrote:
Financial Aid helps people goto school who otherwise could not afford it. Either by grants or loans. So yes your right that not everyone should goto college, but everyone should have an equal chance. Rich or Poor. Without financial aid less people would attend college and our nations workforce would not be as qualified in certain fields compared to other countries. Who knows....maybe we would even start hiring people from other countries because of underqualified workers. Also all government aid, payments, grants stimulates to economy a lot more than you guys think. The mulitiplier effect is tremendous and has an impact. Maybe not as much as back in the day but still impacts our economy. These two positives outweigh any argument that Financial Aid should be abolished.....I also am starting to like Ron Paul.....
I'm with you on poorer people affording education. I was just being specific about federal financial aid. My other comment about too many people going to college applies irrespective of how rich or poor they are.
The glut of people going to college, some of which shouldn't, raises the price for people that really want to work hard, or are really there for the right reasons. The amount of federal aid that people can get at increases that problem, and the tax payers are footing the bill for it.
I don't have a perfect solution to how to get money into the hands of the kids that really need it, and where college will really make a difference for them. I think part of it is a realization shift that college isn't a good investment for everyone... and too many people go for the wrong reasons.
If people are going to treat college purely as a future-earnings investment, i wonder if private scholarships might make more sense... someone will front you the money for college, inexchange for 1% of your net income for the next 20 years. Compound investing is how a lot of the wealth in society is created. All with private funding, no govt needed. We know that private investors do a better job picking winners than the government does...
MIT just announced something to the effect of.. if you can make it into MIT, you will come here, irrespective of if you can pay or not. They'll make up the difference by jacking up normal tuition and other stuff, i think. In that case, I'm actually for that sort of policy. The best and brightest minds need to be cultivated, and having had the bad luck of choosing poor parents shouldn't hold up someone who's an MIT-caliber person from going to MIT. That said, I don't think MIT is acheiving this with federal money.. i think their endowment and other financial backers agreed to set it up.
Ron Paul wants to get rid of a lot of things, but that doesn't mean they're all equally important to cut the purse-strings on. In his interview on the daily show... John Stewart asked him yes/no on a big list of things to cut funding for. Eventually he got to "UN children's fund" or osmething lke that. On that one... Pauls answer was "well, something like that would be way at the bottom of the list". The IRS/CIA/DHS/etc would be near the top.
Note that Paul is a guy that wants us out of the UN, thinks its a corrupt organization, etc, but the peice of the UN that's trying to help sick kids isn't where he's going to aim first at trying to cut spending.
He's not insane. He's not radical. Nothing he's suggesting is new. He's trying to turn back the clock in different places. Everything he wants is something that we've already done before in the past. If everyone agrees government is too big and wasteful (many people do), you've got to start cutting back somewhere, somehow.
Do you realize that if we reduced our federal spending to the 1999 (i think) level, we could completely eliminate personal income taxes? That's how much our federal spending has grown just since then. I don't think we were underspending in the 90s. Our society wasn't dysfunctional then.
We can do it, we just need politicians that beleive in leaving money in our hands... and you only do that by making the very hard decisions to stop spending so much money.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login