+- Atlanta Falcons Talk (http://atlantafalconstalk.com)
+-- Forum: Falcons Fans Message Boards (/Forum-Falcons-Fans-Message-Boards)
+--- Forum: Talk About The Falcons & So Much More (/Forum-Talk-About-The-Falcons-So-Much-More)
+--- Thread: Off Topic: Ron Paul leads in Iowa (/Thread-Off-Topic-Ron-Paul-leads-in-Iowa)
RE: Ron Paul leads in Iowa - Radical - 12-20-2011 04:07 AM
(12-20-2011 01:58 AM)mcsupersport Wrote: My biggest problem with Paul is his foreign policy or should I say lack of one that isn't 1939ish or 1905ish. You can't operate a modern superpower and maintain that distinction by acting like a turtle and pulling back into your shell. Now truly we don't need to be every place we currently are, but too often he has called for the complete dismantling of the forward bases around the world that would allow us to respond quickly to the issues we should.
Distinction? What is the purpose of having a vast overseas empire of military bases? Why do we funnel money into foreign nations who in term abuse their people and skirmish with other countries? Our actions around the world, especially Israel, is the reason why we have had to deal with terrorists for the past several decades.
RE: Ron Paul leads in Iowa - skn - 12-20-2011 05:48 AM
Paul will go third party if he doesn't win the republican nomination. If not, we can still write him in.
RE: Ron Paul leads in Iowa - RockHoward - 12-20-2011 06:27 AM
I have been a politically active libertarian for over 25 years and it is great to see so many people starting to figure this stuff out a bit. Ron Paul isn't a perfect candidate, but he is fantastic compared with most of the others. Only Governor Gary Johnson is in his league, but Gary never got any traction.
IMO Ron Paul will not go third party if he misses out on the Republican nomination. There are too many states like Texas with so-called "sore loser" laws that would prevent him from doing that. It is more likely that Gary Johnson will drop out of the Republican race and run for the Libertarian Party nomination. If so, then I will vote for Gary if Ron Paul doesn't get the Republican nomination.
Then again Gary might simply drop out of the race and endorse Ron Paul with the understanding that Ron would select him as his VP. I would really like a Paul/Johnson ticket.
Despite being politically active all these years I have never had much hope until recently that enough Americans would eventually figure out the mess we are in and start voting against the big government Republicans and Democrats. It is still a long shot, but at least now there is some hope.
RE: Ron Paul leads in Iowa - Tigz - 12-20-2011 07:55 AM
I can't blame you guys for giving up on your government it certainly not set up for the betterment of it's citizens but for the special interest groups the big corps with all there cash influencing deregulations and laws for the betterment of there industry ...damn the regular citizen...
The result: actually wanting to elect someone like Paul that basically wants to eliminate tons of federal agencies. Make the federal government a non factor whatsoever. Like I said can't blame you guys for thinking this way. Let's stop electing politicians that are in the pockets of big business let's just get rid of government.
Too bad you'll never know what a well functioning government voted by the people set up for the people and actually works for the people is.
flame on
RE: Ron Paul leads in Iowa - mcsupersport - 12-20-2011 03:03 PM
(12-20-2011 07:55 AM)Tigz Wrote: I can't blame you guys for giving up on your government it certainly not set up for the betterment of it's citizens but for the special interest groups the big corps with all there cash influencing deregulations and laws for the betterment of there industry ...damn the regular citizen...
The result: actually wanting to elect someone like Paul that basically wants to eliminate tons of federal agencies. Make the federal government a non factor whatsoever. Like I said can't blame you guys for thinking this way. Let's stop electing politicians that are in the pockets of big business let's just get rid of government.
Too bad you'll never know what a well functioning government voted by the people set up for the people and actually works for the people is.
flame on
You miss the point in, The Dems are all about power to the Government which has the "political class" to tell us peons what to do, and the Repubs are for business to tell us what to do. Personally I would rather have a business tell me because they can't use a gun to take my money and stick me in jail if I don't do what they say. I can also try to become the business if I work hard enough.
Besides all that, do you really think the Union bosses really care about the peons?? If they did, they wouldn't try so hard to squeeze business to death instead of working to keep jobs.
RE: Ron Paul leads in Iowa - takeitdown - 12-20-2011 03:38 PM
(12-20-2011 01:58 AM)mcsupersport Wrote: My biggest problem with Paul is his foreign policy or should I say lack of one that isn't 1939ish or 1905ish. You can't operate a modern superpower and maintain that distinction by acting like a turtle and pulling back into your shell. Now truly we don't need to be every place we currently are, but too often he has called for the complete dismantling of the forward bases around the world that would allow us to respond quickly to the issues we should.
Personally anyone who says they would rather vote for Obama than any of the Repub candidates worries me, because they haven't really been looking around and seeing what is happening or going to happen if he stays in office. The regulations on business, ie healthcare, Unions, EPA, and added oversite rules, plus the Supreme Court judges to be appointed, plus the horrid foreign policy, plus the class warfare rhetoric, plus the out of control spending all add up to issues that could destroy our current way of life and country. Mind you, I am not saying the Repubs are perfect or even totally what we need, but at least it might slow down some of the issues until we can kick enough of the bums out to maybe actually change things enough to make a difference.
Where we are is distressing. I'm also disappointed with the pres. But to not acknowledge that the vast majority of where we are now came about during Bush II, is disingenuous. We went from budget surpluses to deficits, and the things requiring bailouts occurred during that term. Even the bailout occurred then.
I think the way Obama has handled banking and a few other things hasn't been good, but the previous guy came into a country working...and made it cease to function, primarily due to overreaching tax cuts to the wealthy combined with two wars, and a general big government policy.
That doesn't turn around in 2 or 3 years when there is a global economic recession.
I'm not fond of any of the people right now, but at least place the blame where it lies. It's like lighting a house on fire, and then when it's half way burned, blaming the man who came with a bucket of water for not getting the fire under control fast enough. And this should be a warning to anyone who thinks the Pres has no power. I thought that until Bush. They have little power for great good, but they have a lot of power to destroy the country quickly.
RE: Ron Paul leads in Iowa - takeitdown - 12-20-2011 03:42 PM
This comes from someone pro business, but not rabid. Businesses need to be regulated (banking, etc.) and taxed just like the rest of the world. It actually makes businesses more innovative (regulations are one of the primary forces of innovation and new business opportunities known to business leaders.) Unregulated capitalism is anarchy (child labor is cheaper, dumping toxic waste in the local municipality is cheaper, etc.).
I'm a big believer in capitalism as the best system, but unregulated, it's football without boundaries, 10 yards for a first down, etc. Football no longer makes sense if the QB can run up into the stands, hide the ball with fans, come back onto the field and throw a pass. It's stupid. Regulations aren't weak...they construct the battlefield that is played on...but large businesses have managed with a lot of money to make people think all regulation is bad.
And the last thing is tax laws can't keep changing toward the rich, and need to go back. Reagan was far more balanced in his taxes, and he was the trickle down economics king. A march back toward the policy in place at the end of his term would be helpful. The wealthy people I know realize that the greatest risk to their money is not a 2% higher incremental tax, or tax on their capital gains, but rather a huge income inequality which leads to there being no one to buy their goods (as the US is not an exporter and won't become one), as well as civil unrest.
Countries don't function without a middle class doing well. Corporate tax breaks and tax breaks for those over 500k/yr goes counter to this and will never make sense for an economy.
Give me the guy who will make it so our economy is sustainable by regulating capitalism and giving the middle class and small businesses a viable option, and that's the guy I'll vote for. Unfortunately, those guys are seeming more and more rare.
RE: Ron Paul leads in Iowa - babuka - 12-20-2011 05:24 PM
(12-20-2011 03:42 PM)takeitdown Wrote: This comes from someone pro business, but not rabid. Businesses need to be regulated (banking, etc.) and taxed just like the rest of the world. It actually makes businesses more innovative (regulations are one of the primary forces of innovation and new business opportunities known to business leaders.) Unregulated capitalism is anarchy (child labor is cheaper, dumping toxic waste in the local municipality is cheaper, etc.).
I'm a big believer in capitalism as the best system, but unregulated, it's football without boundaries, 10 yards for a first down, etc. Football no longer makes sense if the QB can run up into the stands, hide the ball with fans, come back onto the field and throw a pass. It's stupid. Regulations aren't weak...they construct the battlefield that is played on...but large businesses have managed with a lot of money to make people think all regulation is bad.
And the last thing is tax laws can't keep changing toward the rich, and need to go back. Reagan was far more balanced in his taxes, and he was the trickle down economics king. A march back toward the policy in place at the end of his term would be helpful. The wealthy people I know realize that the greatest risk to their money is not a 2% higher incremental tax, or tax on their capital gains, but rather a huge income inequality which leads to there being no one to buy their goods (as the US is not an exporter and won't become one), as well as civil unrest.
Countries don't function without a middle class doing well. Corporate tax breaks and tax breaks for those over 500k/yr goes counter to this and will never make sense for an economy.
Give me the guy who will make it so our economy is sustainable by regulating capitalism and giving the middle class and small businesses a viable option, and that's the guy I'll vote for. Unfortunately, those guys are seeming more and more rare.
First off, I am not a fan of the term "regulations". You pass laws to protect an individuals right to life and property by saying things like stealing, murder, etc is illegal. You also pass laws to protect one from stealing from a business or visa versa. You pass laws to protect minors/children. A lot of laws/regulations helps no one but the bureaucrats.
Most people have just accepted the United States in the form that we assume it is as how it has always been. The founders did not give the federel government the ability to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. This was added in 1913 by the 16th admendment. The founders did not create the Federal Reserve. It was also founded in 1913. I am not going to go into a disseration on the evils of the Fed, but when you couple the 16th admendment with the Fed and a purely fiat monely supply you create a monster.
"Fairness" is only achieved by having equal liberties for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The "greater good" term that most people throw around is usually the creation of government power and bureaucracy in exchange for security.
The states should handle the more "social" programs like unemployment, welfare, HUD, etc.
RE: Ron Paul leads in Iowa - takeitdown - 12-20-2011 06:48 PM
(12-20-2011 05:24 PM)babuka Wrote: First off, I am not a fan of the term "regulations". You pass laws to protect an individuals right to life and property by saying things like stealing, murder, etc is illegal. You also pass laws to protect one from stealing from a business or visa versa. You pass laws to protect minors/children. A lot of laws/regulations helps no one but the bureaucrats.
Most people have just accepted the United States in the form that we assume it is as how it has always been. The founders did not give the federel government the ability to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. This was added in 1913 by the 16th admendment. The founders did not create the Federal Reserve. It was also founded in 1913. I am not going to go into a disseration on the evils of the Fed, but when you couple the 16th admendment with the Fed and a purely fiat monely supply you create a monster.
"Fairness" is only achieved by having equal liberties for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The "greater good" term that most people throw around is usually the creation of government power and bureaucracy in exchange for security.
The states should handle the more "social" programs like unemployment, welfare, HUD, etc.
I don't want to go into a full debate either. I understand the fed/fiat/etc.
We SHOULD come up with a new word for "regulations." It has become a hated term when it is, in fact, a necessary force in capitalism. Capitalism is always about the bottom line...always...so it is essential that countering forces make sure doing harm is a negative to the bottom line. It's that simple. Dump toxic waste? We'll fine you. That's all I mean, and it should get another name, because people have been conditioned to think rules/regulations are keeping businessmen from being businessmen. There's nothing further from the truth. As I said, it's an understood fundamental of good entrepreneurs and businessmen that new rules open up all sorts of opportunities for small businesses.
As to the Fed/Money/etc., I will say that there are many negatives to it, and we can discuss a different option, but certain things aren't as feasible in the modern world. The founders lived in a world in which many things were far simpler and there was much less interconnectedness and little known about modern realities like limited fossil fuels. A time in which it took 2 months to reach Europe shouldn't dictate financial terms to a time in which correspondence around the world is virtually instantaneous.
My main point was, within the existing system...make capitalism something that works, and if you're going to have to collect taxes (which you do to some level), then levy them more on those for whom it won't put them back in a cycle of poverty. Take most self made men...and ask them...would you rather have money taken from you when you're trying to get started, and need that money to seed your company--or would you rather have it taken when you've made it, and the money simply means you'll put less in the bank, but you still have it made. It's an easy choice. If money is taken away when you don't have a lot, it prevents the seeds from being planted, and no crops come in. If it is taken after the crops have come in, then giving some does not do great damage.
I don't like any taxes, but given that some have to occur (roads, infrastructure, etc.) I'd much rather it be pushed toward the people for whom it won't eat into their rent and basic daily payments. I've been poor and not poor. I'm harmed by the taxes I propose...but I've lived both lives and know how much more it affects some than others. It's not that anyone gets penalized. It's that you don't take from people when that takes from their basic cost of living. Above that, tax everybody the same, or tilt it toward the people with more paying a little more...but we're not talking crazy numbers here. 5% difference, not 50% difference.
I can hypothetically create a whole new world with you, with a different monetary plan, etc., but I think we can actually have a good one with the one in place if people would just display some common sense.
RE: Ron Paul leads in Iowa - xstealth - 12-20-2011 08:55 PM
(12-19-2011 04:12 PM)Radical Wrote: I might actually go out and register to vote if he wins the primaries.
please do that now, so you can vote for him in the primaries!
I am a libertarian, but had to change my voting registration to Republican to vote in the primaries because I live in FL.
Ron Paul is the REAL DEAL!