+- 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 - xstealth - 12-20-2011 09:05 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.
With our current foreign policy, we will go broke. What good is a base on the other side of the world when we wake up with a collapsed currency?
We are losing our status as a super power of the world, militarily strong still, but fiscal responsibility maintains that, and we are failing. Our economic situation is dire, because unless we stop it, then we are going to lose EVERYTHING.
Foreign policy should go in a complete change, it's what got us in this problem in the first place. We need a real change, and Paul is the only one that can give it.
Our foreign policy is what produces more wars, more enemies, and more debt.
We need to remember the Soviet Union and Ancient Rome, over expansion and wars collapsed the world super powers.
Please watch this about his foreign policy:
RE: Ron Paul leads in Iowa - Dale4Saul2Red0 - 12-20-2011 11:23 PM
Never in my wildest dreams would I have predicted a legit political thread on this forum.
RE: Ron Paul leads in Iowa - Tigz - 12-20-2011 11:47 PM
(12-20-2011 03:03 PM)mcsupersport Wrote: 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.
No I think you missed my point it's not the Dems nor the Reps that are the problems it's your type of government. A style of government that is basically there for the taking to the highest bidder. It's not set up for the regular citizen. in other words don't blame the players (politicians) blame the game (gouvernment) T
Like I said it's all about the money, remove the money and you will get a real style of government one for the people. The only way to obtain this is through campaign finance reform...
Do you know how much a Canadian citizen can contribute to a political campaign up here ? 1000 $ max. Do you know how much corporations and big unions can contribute ..... ZERO dollars that's right ZERO our politicians don't get into office with IOUs hanging over there heads by the rich cats.
Once you remove the money from the equation then you would see what a government can really do for it's citizens.
I can understand why so many people are attracted to Ron Paul it's actually a defeatist solution, forget about fixing it let's just get rid of it.
The only politician that any American should vote for is one that stands on one principle and that is on campaign financing reform ...MAJOR reform the ZERO corps\union\special interest type of reform.
RE: Ron Paul leads in Iowa - Tigz - 12-20-2011 11:53 PM
Very strong video xstealth but as a non-American its nothing that I didn't know about the US. The 9\11 commission explored the where, when, who and what of Sept 11th but never the WHY. The truth isn't pretty as your video demonstrated but I feel it also left out the Zionist influence on American foreign policy which is understandable ....
RE: Ron Paul leads in Iowa - mcsupersport - 12-21-2011 12:29 AM
You want to fix government take power away from big central and put it back in state and local. Take money and power away. Make the Senate NOT be elected by the populous but by state government, because the idea was the house was the people the Senate was for states. Institute a pure flat tax or federal sales tax, this stops gov reps playing with taxes for power and reduces the need for business to play politics.
This would be a good start.
RE: Ron Paul leads in Iowa - JDaveG - 12-21-2011 01:03 AM
(12-20-2011 03:38 PM)takeitdown Wrote: 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.
Those wheels were in motion LONG before Bush took office. This has been a long time coming, and while Bush didn't do anything to stop it, neither did Clinton, nor the Democrats in Congress, nor Obama, nor anyone else.
Who voted for the bailouts? Everyone. Who voted to let banks bend the rules and self-regulate? Everyone. Who is looking the other way while the thieves who cost this profit on taxpayer dollars? Everyone.
Everyone except Ron Paul. And probably Dennis Kucinich. If you seriously believe everything was hunky-dory and GWB brought the house down then you aren't paying attention. And that scares the hell out of me.
RE: Ron Paul leads in Iowa - Dale4Saul2Red0 - 12-21-2011 01:04 AM
(12-21-2011 12:29 AM)mcsupersport Wrote: You want to fix government take power away from big central and put it back in state and local. Take money and power away. Make the Senate NOT be elected by the populous but by state government, because the idea was the house was the people the Senate was for states. Institute a pure flat tax or federal sales tax, this stops gov reps playing with taxes for power and reduces the need for business to play politics.
This would be a good start.
That's the problem though. Republican or Democrat it doesn't matter, the one thing they can agree on is that they don't like the phrase "take money and power away"
JDaveG you are 100% correct in your assessment. The popular thing to do is blame the current guy in office. Not to say Bush and Obama don't deserve some critcism but the massive piles of hate they get is extremely unwarranted. I can only imagine walking into a job where you know you're fighting a losing battle. Like you said the wheels were put in motion a long long time ago and we've been continually walking down the same path. The further we walk, the worse it gets. The problems this country faces can't be fixed by one President. It's going to need to be a collective effort from a few Presidents, but when you keep playing musical chairs with the seats nothing will ever get done.
RE: Ron Paul leads in Iowa - JDaveG - 12-21-2011 01:09 AM
(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.
You hit on some of the problems, but just to drill down a bit -- lack of regulation is not the problem. Double standards is the problem. The tax rates are a diversion. The truly rich pay very little tax in this country, and changing the top marginal rate won't change that. I don't see the benefit in soaking people who make $300K per year (and cannot afford to buy the type of influence the truly rich can buy) when the billionaires will still skate on their tax liability. While corporations will still receive taxpayer money to cheat taxpayers. When we will start wars so our campaign donors can get huge military and construction contracts. When we set up drug policy so prison contractors can build and staff more prisons.
We could deregulate and still have a level playing field if we are willing to actually work to level the playing field. Or we can hyper-regulate and keep the current arrangement. I'm not dogmatic on what level of regulation we have but I am far more interested in whether the regulations are fair and apply to all versus being targeted to help some and push out others. In the latter instance, we'll keep getting what we're getting. And the former instance will require real change from someone with the guts to call a spade a spade, get the government out of the business of propping up corporate and banking interests, and end the military-industrial and prison-industrial complexes. Ask yourself this -- who is that candidate?
RE: Ron Paul leads in Iowa - JDaveG - 12-21-2011 01:13 AM
(12-21-2011 01:04 AM)Dale4Saul2Red0 Wrote: That's the problem though. Republican or Democrat it doesn't matter, the one thing they can agree on is that they don't like the phrase "take money and power away"
JDaveG you are 100% correct in your assessment. The popular thing to do is blame the current guy in office. Not to say Bush and Obama don't deserve some critcism but the massive piles of hate they get is extremely unwarranted. I can only imagine walking into a job where you know you're fighting a losing battle. Like you said the wheels were put in motion a long long time ago and we've been continually walking down the same path. The further we walk, the worse it gets. The problems this country faces can't be fixed by one President. It's going to need to be a collective effort from a few Presidents, but when you keep playing musical chairs with the seats nothing will ever get done.
That's the thing -- for me Ron Paul being President isn't about him fixing the country in 4 years so he can retire and we can move on with our utopia. It's about correctly diagnosing the problem. I don't agree with all his policy positions. But he absolutely gets what is wrong. And even if he can't fix it, what he can do is talk about it and use the bully pulpit to call out the thieves that are ruining this country. Getting that national conversation started is what I care about. That's why I strongly support both the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements. They have diametrically opposed policy preferences, but both of them absolutely understand what's wrong. When we get more people on board with what the problem is, we can start to debate how to fix it.
But right now everyone wants to pretend that electing another generic Republican will somehow be better than the generic Democrat we have now. And in 4 years if things aren't better, we'll be talking about how all we need is a good Democrat to undo what this Republican did. It all just misses the point so badly. What we need is a real change in direction. In this particular race, there is only one man offering that.
RE: Ron Paul leads in Iowa - takeitdown - 12-21-2011 02:10 AM
(12-21-2011 01:03 AM)JDaveG Wrote: Those wheels were in motion LONG before Bush took office. This has been a long time coming, and while Bush didn't do anything to stop it, neither did Clinton, nor the Democrats in Congress, nor Obama, nor anyone else.
Who voted for the bailouts? Everyone. Who voted to let banks bend the rules and self-regulate? Everyone. Who is looking the other way while the thieves who cost this profit on taxpayer dollars? Everyone.
Everyone except Ron Paul. And probably Dennis Kucinich. If you seriously believe everything was hunky-dory and GWB brought the house down then you aren't paying attention. And that scares the hell out of me.
No, unfortunately, I get it, and have been paying attention. I try not to on occasion. We have been on this course since about 20 yrs post the second world war. The course wasn't tenable because it depended on a world in which developed countries were bombed out (WWII) and developing countries couldn't compete. This held until the late 50's, and has held with some modification post that...but it was simply a temporary state of being for the world...yet the US based its entire concept on it.
I'm not propping anyone up here. I think Obama made some major errors with the economy, not on the bailout as much as on not implementing regulations with the money (you take my money, here are the rules) and with not overriding the FDIC etc. on idiotic mark to market policies which bankrupted nearly all small banks even if their loans were being paid back on time. That, in turn, exacerbated conditions greatly, as it caused real estate to sell at radically lowered prices, instead of simply keeping it illiquid...which wouldn't have adversely affected prices the same. But that wasn't my initial point. My point was more that Bush did more harm than I thought was possible. And that's important to keep in mind, because it's easy to say "they're just all the same." But Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton didn't do what Bush II did. He accelerated the path we were on dramatically by reducing corporate taxes, and taxes for the wealthy--even after the economy started to slow. Go look at the many tax breaks, the actual amounts, and how directly they contributed to the current debt. Repeal of banking regulations and tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations are the two immediate causes of this recession (the more fundamental or longstanding causes can be debated, but there's little debate about these immediate precipitating factors)
I'm actually much more pro a multi party system with proportionate representation, campaign reform, etc. Part of the problem is, even if you utterly eliminate campaign donation...these Congressmen still know that if they look out for big business, they'll get 1M dollar jobs when they get out. That's much harder to regulate.
When I speak on politics, I generally speak on what can be done to adjust the current system, rather than what could be if we started from scratch...simply because one can be acted on and the other is more pretty thoughts than likelihood. I'm a big believer in act on what you can, create the revolution you can, but in the meantime, keep the worst people out of office.
People don't realize just how much of our tax burden is now taken on by the middle class, that used to be shouldered more by corporations and the uber wealthy. That isn't sustainable. It hasn't really been in any society.
It is not hyperbole to say the Republicans have thrown down the gauntlet and refuse to shift the tax burden back toward corporations and the uber wealthy. I'd like a group other than Democrats to vote for, but as long as that is the stated policy of the Republican heads, it is difficult to see a way to vote in that direction.
We need an additional party, at least, on each extreme...a fiscal conservative small government party on the right that is not socially regressive and a more populist socialist party on the left that truly represents the working man and the poor.
Currently, the working man is represented by no one. It's obscene. At least one party doesn't try to shift the tax burden on to the working class, but I can't say they do much else for them.