Ron Paul 2012
-
thrash;322871 wrote:
You gotta start somewhere. If people are willing to cut spending of anything, that's a start. Instead, they "compromise" by increasing spending tit for tat.Shithead #1: "My district wants to give another no-bid contract to make government pencils for $200 each to MegaSuperCorp".
Shithead #2: "My district wants to provide more books about having 2 dads to all school children"
All 500+ Shitheads: "DEAL!"the difference between spending money on govt contracts for war/pencils/wheelchair ramps to the beach/ect and attempting to broaden the horizons for children are sort of apples and oranges in my opinion. if playing the recorder for ten minutes in 3rd grade means one more kid wont be a world of warcraft enthusiast, i say victory.
i agree in that in order to make that happen, you have to buy votes by subsidizing the mining of coal. part of me wants to call that a necessary evil, but honestly, how do you proclaim that a priority list if one has to compliment the other? you cant. which is why i still say that war, debt, and gas prices shouldnt be the only things on the mind of the people. why? because to solve these we will either give up more liberties, cut programs which are paramount to the survival/success of many, or further enhance the separation of wealth in this country.
DrifterExtreme;322864 wrote:
Racist much??? :icon_salut:
ten bucks says you had to google who i was even talking about so stfu -
Well, as much as I don't like it, war is a job of the federal government. Education isn't supposed to be. There was no DOE before Carter, and I don't think education has gotten better since then.
It's not that I think education is unimportant. I do however, think federal invovlement is not only illegal but has made it worse for everyone.
I am against corporate handouts and graft and am entertaining the idea of eliminating corporate personhood and owner-immunity as a concession to the idea that corporations get special favor from the government that they wouldn't otherwise get. And I think that would alleviate much of the specter of unearned wealth in our society. But I'm not willing to say that the "separation of wealth" is a bad thing if you are talking about the "distribution of wealth". Some people simply contribute much, much more to society than others. THey should be rewarded accordingly.
As long as society is making wealth decisions using a voluntary process (i.e. buying what they want to buy, from who they want to buy from), the resultant distribution is inherently moral and ethical.
I am probably angrier about government giving unearned wealth to companies than I am about government giving unearned wealth to lazy people, but both should stop. Ron Paul is against both, of course.
-
24valvenotak;322880 wrote:
ten bucks says you had to google who i was even talking about so stfu10 bucks says you have no idea what i know so assuming I'm so far removed from current events makes you look like a dumb ass. but continue.
-
thrash;322885 wrote:
Well, as much as I don't like it, war is a job of the federal government. Education isn't supposed to be. There was no DOE before Carter, and I don't think education has gotten better since then.It's not that I think education is unimportant. I do however, think federal invovlement is not only illegal but has made it worse for everyone.
I am against corporate handouts and graft and am entertaining the idea of eliminating corporate personhood and owner-immunity as a concession to the idea that corporations get special favor from the government that they wouldn't otherwise get. And I think that would alleviate much of the specter of unearned wealth in our society. But I'm not willing to say that the "separation of wealth" is a bad thing if you are talking about the "distribution of wealth". Some people simply contribute much, much more to society than others. THey should be rewarded accordingly.
As long as society is making wealth decisions using a voluntary process (i.e. buying what they want to buy, from who they want to buy from), the resultant distribution is inherently moral and ethical.
I am probably angrier about government giving unearned wealth to companies than I am about government giving unearned wealth to lazy people, but both should stop. Ron Paul is against both, of course.
No I dont mean the govt should send checks out to somehow regulate the level of disparity in this country. My gripe isnt with people making sane leves of money. My gripe is with the assholes making two hundred million dollars a year who invented something else to bet on/against.
Education cant be left to the private sector either. The Devry Institute, Pheonix, ect ect are proving just how much worse the education system could be. I dont think the states can handle it either or alabama will end up with two water fountains again.
DrifterExtreme;322893 wrote:
10 bucks says you have no idea what i know so assuming I'm so far removed from current events makes you look like a dumb ass. but continue.You know me better than to call me racist. That is just absurd. The fact that I have zero faith in your ability to comprehend anything more than mt dew and honda tech, however, still stands. As I have said before just leave me alone and we can both live happily ever after.
-
24valvenotak;322905 wrote:
You know me better than to call me racist. That is just absurd. The fact that I have zero faith in your ability to comprehend anything more than mt dew and honda tech, however, still stands. As I have said before just leave me alone and we can both live happily ever after.You took joking to serious in 2 sec in the last thread. ( lol me telling you the you must have been smoking when you talked about bush in a war criminal way = i'm an enemy) LOLZZZZ
but please continue to be an elitist and denounce anything i say as i know nothing and my opinion doesn't matter.
-
24valvenotak;322905 wrote:
Education cant be left to the private sector either. The Devry Institute, Pheonix, ect ect are proving just how much worse the education system could be. I dont think the states can handle it either or alabama will end up with two water fountains again.You are absolutely wrong with this, my kids were in private school for their first 4 years and it is on a completely different level with public. Sure, there could be a few issues with an all private school system, but they are a speck of fly shit compared to the issues at public schools currently. Let the gubmint set up minimum standards and then get them the hell out of education and we'd all be far better off.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
The problem I see with abandoning public schools entirely is that the poor will have even less of a chance to get a decent education. I mean, those of us with enough money to send our kids to a private school have an inherent advantage in the education of our children already in that we get to decide to a greater detail the course study, ideology, etc.. that our kids are exposed to. Now imagine if all that were available were public schools. The separation would be even greater, the middle class/upper middle class would likely have about the same level of education that is currently available in the public sector, the "rich" (and I use that term loosely) would have the elite education and the poor would have what.... Yolanda's How-to-be-a-ho School for young girls and Pharrell's School of Pimptasticness?
I'm in favor of the public school system as it at least sets a basic standard of what is expected. Is it perfect? HELL NO. I may very well pull my kid from it, but we will see how public kindergarten goes next year. I keep hearing about the "liberal" school system, but I really felt like I was being fed more conservative info than liberal in school. Maybe my school's were the exception, I guess I'll have to see.
Now, having the federal gov't step out of public school funding/guidelines is something I'd entertain. Let the states determine what the standards should be and go from there. IF that happens however, I'd like to see my federal tax burden go down, otherwise it will end up costing me more in the future.
Right now Ron Paul is the only candidate I'd consider from the Republican party. The rest seriously seem like more of the same shit that we always get....conservative and full of hopes and dreams when running (both sides) and spend money like a drunken sailor on shore leave at a titty bar once they are in office.
Ron Paul is the only one who's proven to practice what he preaches and I applaud him for that, even if I don't agree with him some of the time.
-
I hear you in terms of money manipulators. The game is rigged against normal folks. Banksters shouldn't be allowed to do that to "our" money, but it isn't "our money" to begin with, it's theirs, and it has been since 1913. The destruction of money is one of the biggest problems in this country. Normal people can understand saving. But there is no saving any more.. you cannot do it. There is no financial instrument in the US that pays a higher rate of return than the rate of inflation. The money masters have put all of us on an inflation treadmill that we'll never escape from.
When a guy makes 2 million paper dollars over nite in some kind of futures speculation, that's new money that has been created out of thin air. That's real inflation. He gets those dollars immediately, and they chase after the exact same amount of product that existed yesterday. When the same amount of product has 2 million more dollars chasing after it, what happens? Prices go up. Thats price inflation.
You and I and most normal people only benefit from monetary inflation when we take out mortgages. We benefit in the sense that new money was created (the money to pay the mortgage) and we got it before the next guy -- the second we signed the papers on OUR mortgage, houses just got more expensive for everyone else, because more fake money was chasing the same number of houses. More houses will get built, but at higher prices.
We also benefit because monetary inflation destroys the real value of debts. On a 30 year fixed note, the value of the final dollar you use to pay off that mortgage will be a pathetic fraction of the buying power of the dollars you were "given" to buy the house today.
The only way to "win" in our society is to be close to new money. If you can get real-estate mortgages that don't go underwater, if you can invest on credit, if you can profit from derivative instruments (mostly on margin -- or credit), you will win. You have to find a way to make new money out of thin air faster than the other guys, and you have to be close to the front of the line to get that new money.
The reason so many dipshits were getting into crazy mortgages is because that is the ONLY way for normal people to have a chance in the rigged game. They may not have understood it precisely, but people have a vague notion that "my house" is the only safe place to put any money they have, and putting in someone else's money is EVEN BETTER.
For everybody else, our savings loses real value and purchasing power over time.
Not even our government controls "our" money. Our government borrows money from a cartel of private banks. This transfer of wealth and power was the ultimate coup of world history, and as long as the banks loan the feds enough money for the feds to give bread and circuses to most of the people most of the time, its all a little bit too complicated for the average guy to realize what's happening.
If you control money, you control everything.
We don't have a "free market" or a government that spends wisely, because its all based on funny money.. money that our people and our government do not control.
This is why Ron Paul talks about money and the federal reserve. It is the key stone to our society. The control of monetary inflation is the backdoor lever to control every aspect of our lives.
There was a period in our history, when we were mostly on a hard money standard -- one that real American Democrats fought hard to keep -- they fought the greedy banksters and their colluding industrialists -- we had a hard money standard, and during this time, prices of goods went down. And why shouldn't they? After all, if, after making the 100,000th car, you havent' figured out how to do it cheaper than whe you built the first one, YOU SUCK.
The natural course of events is for production to become more efficient. This should lower prices.
But instead, prices of EVERYTHING goes higher. Why? Because we create money faster than we create wealth. Monetary base inflation creates price inflation, destroys savings, and favors those who can borrow profitably. ''
That's the insidious cycle we have to break, and Ron Paul is the ONLY guy talking about it.
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