Presidential Election

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:55 pm

Personally, I don't like either Obama or McCain. They are both bad. It's just more of the same.

If you want real CHANGE, imagine a candidate with these views:

Cut federal spending SEVERELY. Close down entire wasteful bureaucratic departments like the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Homeland Security, etc.
Abolish the IRS and the income tax. Replace it with nothing. Let people keep more of what they earn.
Abolish the Federal Reserve and reform our monetary policy to strengthen the dollar, back it by gold and get rid of inflationary policies.
Fundamentally change our foreign policy COMPLETELY. Stay out of foreign entanglements and alliances. Follow the advice of the Founding Fathers and trade and be friends with other countries but don't try to police the world. Doing so has created hatred towards America and besides, it's bankrupting the nation!
Recall all troops immediately. Like right now. And not just Iraq and Afghanistan, but everywhere in the world. Japan, Germany, Korea, Saudi Arabia...all 170 countries where we have over 700 military installations. Stop trying to maintain a world empire. Doing this would save hundreds of billions of dollars.
Smaller government that leaves you alone and lets you run your own life.
Defend the fundamental concepts of freedom and liberty. No more unconstitutional "Patriot" Acts, secret prisons and torture.
Follow the Constitution, the supreme law of the United States of America. Yeah, remember that thing?

There is only one candidate who has the balls to stick up for these views when everyone else offers more of the same. That person is Congressman Ron Paul. He got laughed at the debates and the media constantly marginalized him with rude questions and comments. But he always sticks to his principles. His consistent voting record prompted one of his congressional colleagues to say, "There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. Ron Paul is one of those few."

He's not perfect, but he's the only politician that I have ever really supported.

Even Howard Stern has good words for Ron Paul:

So who is Ron Paul?

In California, the Secretary of State has certified Ron Paul as an official write-in candidate. So if you're not happy with the two-party system either, and if freedom, liberty, smaller government, non-interventionist foreign-policy, and monetary reform sounds good to you, Google Ron Paul, find out more and consider writing him in if you agree with his message.

Some might think this would be a wasted vote. I say I would rather vote for someone that I truly support than for just a lesser of two evils.

Post by **HikeUp** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:16 pm

Howard who?

FIGHT ON · Post by **FIGHT ON** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:24 pm

gee. wonder why his wife left him?

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:34 pm

Just so no one is confused, the crack about his wife leaving him is about Howard Stern, not Ron Paul. Ron Paul has been married to the same women for 50 years.

This thread is not about Howard Stern. I have no opinion on him since I don't listen to his show. I simply thought it was interesting how two completely opposite people like Stern and Paul can agree on simple things that make sense like smaller government, living within our means, minding our own business, liberty and freedom.

FIGHT ON · Post by **FIGHT ON** » Sat Oct 25, 2008 11:04 pm

Political positions of Ron Paul
From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_ ... f_Ron_Paul

Howard Stern
From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Stern

Stern has said that he plays chess every day, frequenting the Internet Chess Club. He has taken online lessons from Dan Heisman, a chess master from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[40

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/cross ... ref=slogin

I know exactly what he is going through. It's addicting. He's hooked big time.
I still think he's a jerk.

Never checked out ron paul before.

JMunaretto · Post by **JMunaretto** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:50 pm

What is the experimental evidence that a minuscule government (it must be practically nothing if there are no taxes) will yield a 'better' economy? Theories are nice and all, but I don't tend to see much experimental evidence to many of the models people throw out there. Would be nice to see.

Post by **Taco** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:08 pm

I'm a Ron Paul fan myself.

Small government, smaller on the world scene or what ya'd like to call it.

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 5:22 pm

JMunaretto wrote:What is the experimental evidence that a minuscule government (it must be practically nothing if there are no taxes) will yield a 'better' economy?

Good question, Joseph.

This video below, a 20/20 special by John Stossel, explains very well why smaller government is better and gives several examples of why. Basically what it says is that individuals will always know better about what's best for them, rather than a central government. Also, the bigger a government is, the more it becomes a tool for the ones in power to control everyone else. But when people are free and you tax them less, they have more resources and incentives to contribute even more to the economy. This is why communism and socialism never works.

20/20 - Politically Incorrect Guide To Politics - FULL from Bradley T. on Vimeo.

The reason why we have an economic crisis right now is because the markets are not truly free. Interest rates are not freely set. They're controlled by the Federal Reserve. Laws were passed to influenced sub-prime mortages. And pass history of government bailouts created an incentive for these companies to take on bigger risk than they normally would have. The bailout just made everything worst. They are financing it by just creating money out of thin air. This devalues the dollar which reduces your purchasing power and lowers the standard of living. No one ever talks about the dollar and how it's going down, except for Ron Paul. This is just as bad as getting robbed.

JMunaretto · Post by **JMunaretto** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:04 pm

Well, this video is interesting with some validity but doesn't really provide broadly-based evidence to reduce government to almost nil.

Giving a few smalltime examples (we can volunteer to build houses better) does not prove the idea that everything will be better if the government was not involved. However it does give a few good ones, like the drop of farm subsidies in New Zealand (an idea I agree with).

But these don't give a broad mandate that such a thing works across all sectors. In fact, it is simply unstable to think that NO government regulation will always be the best choice in every aspect. If someone thinks that, all it takes is ONE counterexample to disprove the whole theory. And there will always be a counterexample.

And once people agree that there must be at least some government regulation, it's more about deciding how much, and in what areas.

So many words like socialism and capitalism have been abused people don't know their original meanings (not saying I do!). Is a country socialist by having any regulation? Or 'redistribution of wealth'? No matter what the scale, surely people realize the U.S. is socialist already. Not as much as many European countries, but both brands aren't going away from a lot of market competition anytime soon.

I guess I have fundamental differences, I feel pretty confident that people CANNOT make their own choices in every aspect of life. The idea sounds nice, trust me. But again all there needs to be is one counterexample - one instance where it would be better for a group of people if someone made a choice for them - to disprove the idea that the individual should get to choose all the time.

Do I want to have to choose which foods are safe to eat? No FDA, no regulation, how the hell do I know what I am eating isn't going to kill me? There are simply too many choices in life.

People think removing government would make everything better. All that would happen is that corporations would take its place. I guarantee if there wasn't an FDA, there would be private companies offering a service to provide you with information on foods that are safe.

Would corporations be more efficient? Maybe. Definitely for somethings. Not for ensuring civil liberties. This country doesn't need to be any more bigoted. That requires government involvement.

So which countries follow such ideals? Are they successful? When I've browsed http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php just browsing some comparisons, I don't have the strongest correlations for positives (strong economy, quality of life, etc) with amount of government regulation (taxes, social programs, etc...). You know what I think is the most significant factor? Corruption. And you can have that in governments or businesses. If money is put into the hands of the corrupt, things don't go well for the country. Just limiting government will not solve this problem.

JMunaretto · Post by **JMunaretto** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:13 pm

Well that was too long, but one final thing. I have an engineering background, so I think of some political things with that in mind.

The public and private sectors combine to form some sort of control system for our economy, prosperity, and whatever else. Control systems normally have both feedback and feedforward components.

Feedback takes information of what has happened, and tries to adjust accordingly. Arguments always say that private sector is more efficient at this. Okay I can agree.

But a system with just feedback can easily go to ruin because it doesn't have an predictive component. Private sector finds short term demands for things, and produces them quickly. Let's take alternative energy. When there is a demand for it (like starting now/soon), companies will make stuff happen. But they won't be making a product that won't be useful for another 20 years, because they would simply go bankrupt.

Now, if there weren't any subsidies in the past for alt energy, we would be even further behind the curve. If some big oil shock came, the delay could easily be too large to handle it without chaos.

Again, all it takes is one example to show that there needs to be some kind of predictive component in our system. And it can't be private sector. That's where government has to come in.

Now that doesn't mean the government gets it right always, but it has to try. No one else will. This is feedforward. We need at least some of it. Without corruption, it would do pretty well.

FIGHT ON · Post by **FIGHT ON** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:50 pm

i'm spreading the wealth around!

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:05 pm

I know what you're saying. It seems like there would be anarchy if we went to a full free-market society. And it actually would.

In reality, you still need the government because you need a cop to keep order. Someone is needed to enforce contracts, protect private property rights, and stop collusion and fraud. This is the role of government. In an ideal market, with a level playing field like that, everything else falls into place. It's hard to wrap your head around that concept because we're so use to having the government in everything. But, theoretically it would happen (after some time of instability) because of the spontaneous order that results, just like in nature and evolution.

However, I admit I'm too afraid too deregulate that far in some areas. There are some things that have to be watched over like pollution, building codes, product/food safety because we don't want to end up like China with death-trap buildings and spiked baby milk.

Also, I understand your point about feed-forward. I'm sort of on the fence about this. I know sometimes a country needs to adopt a certain national policy for strategic reasons, like mandating fuel-efficient cars or switching to alternative energy. If left to the markets, it might be too late.

But I don't think Dr. Ron Paul wants to go as far as free market anarchism. He knows that's an idealization. His point is that the Federal government is way bigger than it needs to be, beyond what the Constitution dictates. Like the Department of Education. Why do we need that? The states and local government already run public education, as they should be. We don't need a federal department.

Also, we're trying to maintain an empire all over the world that is pissing off other countries and bankrupting us. We have over 700 military bases in over 130 different countries. We send billions of dollars in aid to all sorts of countries for "strategic reasons" (basically bribes to keep them on our good side). It's estimated that we spend $1 trillion every year on this foreign policy. This is crazy. This money would have been better left to the people who earned it, where it belongs.

Yeah, this country is already a socialist state in many ways. Personally, I don't believe socialism is right. It's morally wrong because redistribution of wealth is nothing more than stealing. It's stealing from one group to give to another. It doesn't matter if it's from the rich to the poor or from the poor to the rich like they've been doing with the intentional inflation and the Wall Street bailout. But there's also an economic impact. If I do well and they take my money to give to the poor guy, then what incentive do I have to do even better? Likewise, what incentive does the poor guy have to do better if things are just given to him? This distorts the market and that's why it's a bad idea in the long run. That's why the bailout is soooooo bad.

Anyhow, good discussion.

AW~ · Post by **AW~** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:46 pm

John Stossel? Same guy as ...'Stossel gets himself all tied up in knots. Tax cuts are good. But if tax cuts increase government revenue, then tax cuts are bad because it means government takes more of our money. So tax cuts aren't good after all'

Heres Stossel on high gas prices.."Gas companies are heroes"
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/01/joh ... re-heroes/

No need for regulation...especially of reporters...
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1134

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:05 pm

Well, that's interesting, but I'm not all that surprised. These types of TV pieces are always a creation of production. They are produced to tell their particular story. I'm sure some are more balanced than other.

But I still think the message of limited government is a good one. It makes sense to me. It's what the Founding Fathers and The Constitution specifies. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the government but now it's just being ignored. Our liberties and freedoms gets less and less and the government gets more and more powerful and no one seems to notice, no one seems to care.

By the way, I think high oil prices were mainly due to devaluation of the dollar and institutional investors speculating in the commodities market. There are several loopholes in the commodities trading law that allowed fraud and gaming of the system. I blame Wall Street and the Federal Reserve. But I don't think the oil companies are "heroes" either. They're probably crooked too with all that lobbying money and subsidies.

I like to think I've never been part of the tin-foil hat crowd like the 9/11 conspiracy theorists or the we didn't land on the moon crowd. I still don't believe those things, but the more and more I read and see about what's really going on, I say we are heading towards a totalitarian society.

Watch this video:

Look at how they got all spooked when that Rep. mentioned the Continuity of Government plans to suspend the Constitution (2:23)!

Here's the ArmyTimes article: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/a ... d_090708w/

You have to wonder, why would they make contingencies for "civil unrest" in this country?

One last thing, tax cuts are good. They are only bad if you don't reduce spending as well. You can only reduce spending by reducing the government. Even if we don't cut taxes, we still need to reduce spending because we continue to run deficits year after year. This is totally irresponsible and unsustainable.

AW~ · Post by **AW~** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:56 pm

You want to get rid of the dept of education, get me a state dept worth its salt to turn it over to....I cant see turning anything completely over to a state that has been mirred in Compton&Oakland for years...in fact Swartzy praised federal law....after his proposed solution "He also has recommended suspending Proposition 98, the landmark education funding law voters approved in 1988"....heres his statement.."In his State of the State address in January, Schwarzenegger said he would make California the first in the nation to embrace the authority it was given under the federal law “to turn these districts around"

You sure you want the LAUSD in complete control? And that goes nation-wide. State educations are about as corrupt as it gets...from the prinicipal listen to education lobbyist --> lobbyist hires prinicipal--->cycle continues to the whole hiring/firing catholic church style of bad/criminal teachers...when I think of self-serving pols, I think of feds as bad, but state as monsters.

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:31 pm

Yes, even on the Department of Education's own site, they say:

Education is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States. It is States and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation.

Also, no where in The Constitution is there wording that authorizes a Department of Education. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and among its purpose is to limit the scope of the federal government to what is specified in that document. If we want to change The Constitution to add that then go through the proper process and do it, but to not follow our own Constitution is not good.

As for the quality of the state level education, if there is an issue then that's a matter that needs to be addressed there. If someone is corrupt, get rid of them. Make the change there. Don't create a federal bureaucracy on top of that which doesn't address the root cause of the problems. All it does is waste more money.

It's interesting when you say that "when I think of self-serving pols, I think of feds as bad, but state as monsters." So if you think they're both bad, at least we can get rid of one of them, right?! This is why we need to change our way of thinking. We've been conditioned to think that when something is wrong, putting more government on it, especially the big bad Federal government will solve it. This is all brainwash. It's like hiring another manager to watch over another manager who watches over another manager.

The DOE was created in 1980. We got by fine without it before that and things haven't gotten better in 28 years, right? People are still saying our education sucks (although personally I have no complaints about my experience in the public school system). The Department now employs over 4500 employees, none of them teaching anyone and has a budget of $68.6 billion dollars! Look at all these departments. It's one big wasteful bureaucracy. The problem is when people hear, let's get rid of the Department of Education, people automatically think you're against education. The real issue is following the Constitution and addressing the problems at the local level like the Framers intended.

JMunaretto · Post by **JMunaretto** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:13 am

Well I agree with most of your points, though wealth distribution is another tricky one. In theory yes its bad to 'share' people's money. But then I have to ask, what happens if we don't do that? That means if there is any tax, it is all going to spending on programs, so government has to be small so it isn't spent on programs that may give back more to lower income citizens.

But this is another 'I need to see examples' of this working. Because I certainly see it as as taxes decrease, the spread between the bottom and top will be even bigger (and it's pretty big already here). The real question is not 'is it fair', but 'is it stable?'. Will the poor accept such differences, especially if they feel its because they are being taken advantage of (corruption, positive feedback (rich get richer), etc...).

One key thing to note is that, if the spread in wealth is large enough and economically it works out that the lower class are actually poor (struggling to survive) there is no way it works. That just leads to revolution. So the question becomes, if the poor can get by, but are a much poorer than the rich, will everyone get along? I don't know that answer and haven't seen evidence one way or the other.

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 12:01 pm

Another great question!

In a free market, there will always be inequalities. Some people will be poor, some people will be rich. The important thing is whether there is an incentive AND a path for the poor to become rich. In a free market there is both, as long as there is free entry (the government enforces contracts and prevents collusion and fraud). If there is a path for the people to become prosperous then society as a whole will become prosperous and the gradient between rich and poor will be more linear.

I hate to use myself and my family as an example of how a poor person can make it in our country, but since it is a first hand account I think it carries more weight. My family immigrated to the United States as refugees in the late 70's. I only mention this because this is why we had very little when we got here. So you could say we were poor. We stayed with a sponsor for a year or so (a family who took us in) but after that we were on our own. I think we were on welfare for about 6 months.

To make a long story short, my parents worked their butts off and after awhile we weren't poor anymore. We weren't rich either but we had a house, a car, a decent lower-middle class living. That work ethic transferred to us kids and all of us went to work when we were 16. Income from my part-time job paid for my entire college education! So it can be done. Some of us got college degrees and my sister started a small business, ironically the same type of one she worked in during high school. She now employs around two dozen people.

The point is each one us, acting out of own self-interest to get ahead, inadvertently creates prosperity for everyone else.

This is why America is so great, the freedom and the opportunities to get ahead. Knowing that there is a path and an incentive to do well makes me want to do well. I can't speak for all immigrants and poor, but when I was poor, I never felt like I was being held down just because other people were rich. I knew that if I wanted to get ahead, I had to work for it. And I was willing to work for it because in America there is a path and an incentive to do that.

Redistribution of wealth removes the incentive to do well and the consequences for not doing well. I believe the best thing you can do for a poor person is let them have their own path to success. The experience of having to work hard at something and succeeding is extremely powerful (it's like climbing a mountain so you all know what I'm talking about). Once you experience that, you feel a need to share this lesson to everyone around you, right? In time, future generations pick up this work ethic and continue the cycle of prosperity.

I know it might sound harsh, but we need to let people fail and we need to let people succeed. There is a reason why this works so well in nature. Our country should be encouraging hard work, personal responsibility and savings. Instead, our government encourages something for nothing—easy credit and handouts. Something for nothing never works! This is what created the mortgage mess.

Post by **Taco** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 1:19 pm

Good discussion, guys.

FIGHT ON · Post by **FIGHT ON** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:19 pm

STRESS BY GALLUP: OBAMA +2

JMunaretto · Post by **JMunaretto** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:29 pm

Well I will first point out that social / economic mobility is not higher in the U.S. than other developed countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility

http://www.urban.org/publications/406722.html

At the same time, however, there is little evidence that this mobility has changed substantially over time. This indicates that the recent increases in inequality have not been offset by any increase in mobility. 21 Thus, the disparity in economic rewards is increasing, while there has been no positive change in the openness or availability of those rewards to everyone in the population. There is also no evidence that mobility is significantly different in the United States than it is in other countries. This suggests that the United States has not only the highest year-to-year inequality in the industrialized world, but also likely has the highest lifetime inequality among similar countries.

Overall, therefore, it is possible that one cause of the increased in public discontent in the United States is the growth in the inequality of economic rewards, unaccompanied by any increase in the accessibility of those rewards to workers. An additional factor that may affect public attitudes is the extent to which mobility for young individuals today compares to that of previous generations, as well as how much their current standing is independent of that of their parents. We turn our attention to these questions in the next brief in this series.

America is known for the idea that 'everyone has a chance' and it's definitely a great belief to have. But the fact is that other countries (and some that redistribute wealth) have as much if not more mobility, so it's nothing special to the U.S.

In terms of motivation to work, of course I agree that this needs to be instilled. Psychological studies have clearly shown a persons mental well-being is linked to them have purpose in life, including their job. However, what is the experimental evidence about the best way to have this?

If we measure work efficiency by GDP per capita (just throwing out one measure), it's not like the U.S. is 'better' than some of those 'socialistic' countries in GDP per person. There may be a better statistic to get down to the details, but at this level those countries have workers producing as much as here.

So, all this stuff amounts to 'I don't @$%# know' what to make of it. Those trends tell me that I don't see any evidence (and when I mean evidence, I mean at a whole country level) that no taxes / tiny government will be the best. It's an idea. It might be right. But I don't know how to believe in something so strongly without concrete evidence (there's the agnostic showing).

What do I believe in? This. I dunno about you guys, but looks like a correlation between high scores (= low corruption) and good quality of life. No matter what level of taxes we have, I guarantee that improvements would be had if corruption is reduced. Sound obvious? Sure. But we haven't fixed that, and it's a clearer flaw than "wealth redistribution".

What's the best way to reduce corruption? Surely giving companies free reign is not the answer. Surely giving government free reign is not the answer. I would think having a smaller government with strong power to reduce corporate / personal corruption would be good. And then the people need to have strong power to ensure the government is not corrupt. Awareness is an important part of it, but still, I don't know how you get to that point.

I would certainly vote for the politician with clear plans to reduce all forms of corruption. But when is that going to happen?

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:46 pm

I think it's great that people can express such diverse views -- at the height of political season -- so calmly. If only we could discuss things like GPS in such a rational fashion!

I may join the fun at some point, but I have been too busy and will settle for now for reading others' posts. But I can't resist making one comment. I like it a lot here in the USA and don't desire to live anywhere else. But I am aware of some famous work in which psychologists surveyed various indices of happiness in various countries. There were several European countries in which people were much happier by several measures than we in the USA. This despite efforts to redistribute wealth. Or because of it?

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:08 pm

Alan, that study you mentioned is this one. It says Denmark is the happiest country on Earth. The other top ten countries are:

* 1 Denmark
* 2 Switzerland
* 3 Austria
* 4 Iceland
* 5 Bahamas
* 6 Finland
* 7 Sweden
* 8 Bhutan
* 9 Brunei
* 10 Canada

The United States ranked 23rd and Great Britain ranked 41th. The study claims that the reason for the happiness is access to education and health care. Great Britain has universal health care but it didn't rank too high. And I don't think the Icelanders are too happy now with their banking system in shambles and the UK declaring them terrorists so that they can freeze Icelandic bank assets in Britain

But I could argue that there could be so many other factors that affect happiness. Denmark isn't waging war with anyone right now nor maintaining an empire all around the world. Neither is any of the other top 10 countries. I'd be happy too if I lived in Switzerland because they mind their own business. Ironically, Denmark has the second highest suicide rate in Europe:

Benjamin Holst, a Danish journalist, said that Denmark's high suicide rate - the second worst in Europe - and a recent rise in xenophobia should make people question just how content Danes were.

"I'm not sure about these studies and I really wonder about the suicide rates in Denmark," he said. "I mean is it that we're so happy we kill ourselves? I really wonder about that."

I understand why some people are afraid of a free market. It requires that you have faith that "it will all just work out" on its own. Intuitively, this doesn't make sense because it seems like we should always be doing something. But I really do think less is more and besides, it works beautifully in nature and evolution.

I found this video about what is the best way to assist poor people. It might challenge your assumptions.

I think the best part of this video is at 5:30.

By the way, I'm not saying there should be no programs anywhere to help the poor. There could be church groups or community groups that help people get on their feet after a crisis.

The problem with the government redistributing wealth is by doing so, you have to violate someone else's rights. Doing this violates our Constitution and the basis of the Bill of Rights. It doesn't really matter if you can argue a case for it philosophically, we have to reject it on principle alone.

Joseph, you mentioned GDP and some other things about the U.S. That's not really an accurate point against free markets because the U.S. has been messed up for some time now and we've never truly had a free market with a sound monetary policy. This video is from an interview today on Bloomberg explains in very clear terms why we're so messed up financially and economically.

http://www.bloomberg.com/avp/avp.htm?N= ... .95s6Y.asf

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:20 am

Tim -- I agree that the happiness data may reflect many things other than money and its distribution.

Tim · Post by **Tim** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:59 am

AlanK wrote:Tim -- I agree that the happiness data may reflect many things other than money and its distribution.

Right on! I think we have much bigger issues to deal with than redistribution of wealth. That's why these politicians are clueless and/or evil and just say things to get them elected. The biggest issue is this country is broke and just printing more money, but no one talks about that (except Ron Paul).

But I tell you, I think we would all be a lot happier if we changed our foreign policy completely to a non-interventionist policy (pro-peace) and reduced the government so it's less of a burden on people. New Zealand and Switzerland are non-interventionist. Imagine how much better that would be!

Unfortunately neither Obama nor McCain will do these things. Obama won't even commit to pulling troops out of Iraq by the end of his term and he wants to pick a fight with Iran. McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a 100 years. This is insanity, especially when the country is already broke! We need to mind our own business like the Founding Fathers advised:

Washington advised the United States, in his Farewell Address, to remain a neutral player in the international political game. He urged the new republic to avoid conflicts and alliances with other nations. Although he felt that economic ties with other nations should be promoted to encourage trade and commerce, political ties should be minimal. He was concerned that having close relations could force the US to unite with allies to promote their interest and be drawn into their war. Likewise, he was concerned that strongly discordant relations would do the same and that both situations could force the US into conflicts that may not be important to the US. He was concerned that these types of relations would cause passion driven foreign policy rather than policy based upon the nation's interest. Quoting him, "Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world...." - (George Washington Farewell Address)

However, George Washington was not the only Founding Father of the United States to advise neutrality in foreign affairs. Thomas Jefferson, quoting him, stated "I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government [to be] peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none..." "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." - (Thomas Jefferson 1801 former quote 1799 latter).

FIGHT ON · Post by **FIGHT ON** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:09 am

Tim wrote:McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a 100 years.

Where do you get that?

AW~ · Post by **AW~** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:45 pm

I guess I shouldnt be shocked that someone would advocate eliminating all spending on the 'poor'. I know Ron Paul was griping about government assistance to Katrina...and my memory is that 9/11 was the result of our intervention in foreign countries. If he wants to get rid of educational payments, that would be par for his course....my opinion is a renounciation of the founding fathers being the good ole times and a strong endorsement of community/unions. Back in Ron Paul's good ole days, children didnt go to school..they worked..and if you were injured that was your problem....if you werent wanted or had special needs, then you were kicked to the curb or institutionalized.

so spending on the poorer has no improvement...and? we spend billions on jails but the end result is actually a higher recitivism rate. Look, no one is forced to give any money to anyone else. That person that believes that can go live somewhere else...like Mexico where they dont 'redistribute' very much. They are free to eat unregulated food, drive unregulated cars on unregulated surfaces, etc just not in America. People like Paul are absoultey free to try and convince people to change laws, but that doesnt make it the right thing to do.

The whole Iraq story...there was a vote on it(and one of the reasons certain dems I would never vote for incl Clinton that caved). There was also a vote on Bush(twice). As Powell said you break it, you own it...and we are part of the mess right now...and true accountability is to face that....I disagree with Obama on staying in Iraq until 2010 or 2011...I think we can do much better than that... If Ron Paul wants to ignore the military as commander-in-chief, thats not someone I hope is elected. It will be tough for Obama as it is, but I think that Obama sits down, he will get to brass tax and be able to work within the military to change our course in Iraq. I think a large part of that will be his success in political change in Iraq and holding the govt there accountable.

Of course there are many other views Ron Paul has that I dont share...no national parks(does that include the white house?)..and the fact that he is a racist..."opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions"..but thats nothing new for a philosophy born out of the confederacy.

JMunaretto · Post by **JMunaretto** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:40 pm

Tim wrote: I understand why some people are afraid of a free market. It requires that you have faith that "it will all just work out" on its own. Intuitively, this doesn't make sense because it seems like we should always be doing something. But I really do think less is more and besides, it works beautifully in nature and evolution.

You did mention that we'd have to go through some unstable / chaotic times to even achieve this state. A state in which there isn't experimental proof that it works. So yeah, why would a country risk that change, especially a rich one? It's not like we have it that bad.

As for nature and evolution, there are plenty of cases of 'spread the wealth' there as well.

Tim wrote:By the way, I'm not saying there should be no programs anywhere to help the poor. There could be church groups or community groups that help people get on their feet after a crisis.

Who is funding these groups? Private donations? Please cite a country that bases most of its support of its people off of personal donations.

Tim wrote:The problem with the government redistributing wealth is by doing so, you have to violate someone else's rights. Doing this violates our Constitution and the basis of the Bill of Rights. It doesn't really matter if you can argue a case for it philosophically, we have to reject it on principle alone.

I am certainly no history buff, but I thought the whole problem was 'taxation without representation', not just taxation.

Bill · Post by **Bill** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 4:43 pm

JMunaretto wrote:Well, this video is interesting with some validity but doesn't really provide broadly-based evidence to reduce government to almost nil.

Giving a few smalltime examples (we can volunteer to build houses better) does not prove the idea that everything will be better if the government was not involved. However it does give a few good ones, like the drop of farm subsidies in New Zealand (an idea I agree with).

But these don't give a broad mandate that such a thing works across all sectors. In fact, it is simply unstable to think that NO government regulation will always be the best choice in every aspect. If someone thinks that, all it takes is ONE counterexample to disprove the whole theory. And there will always be a counterexample.

And once people agree that there must be at least some government regulation, it's more about deciding how much, and in what areas.

So many words like socialism and capitalism have been abused people don't know their original meanings (not saying I do!). Is a country socialist by having any regulation? Or 'redistribution of wealth'? No matter what the scale, surely people realize the U.S. is socialist already. Not as much as many European countries, but both brands aren't going away from a lot of market competition anytime soon.

I guess I have fundamental differences, I feel pretty confident that people CANNOT make their own choices in every aspect of life. The idea sounds nice, trust me. But again all there needs to be is one counterexample - one instance where it would be better for a group of people if someone made a choice for them - to disprove the idea that the individual should get to choose all the time.

Do I want to have to choose which foods are safe to eat? No FDA, no regulation, how the hell do I know what I am eating isn't going to kill me? There are simply too many choices in life.

People think removing government would make everything better. All that would happen is that corporations would take its place. I guarantee if there wasn't an FDA, there would be private companies offering a service to provide you with information on foods that are safe.

Would corporations be more efficient? Maybe. Definitely for somethings. Not for ensuring civil liberties. This country doesn't need to be any more bigoted. That requires government involvement.

So which countries follow such ideals? Are they successful? When I've browsed http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php just browsing some comparisons, I don't have the strongest correlations for positives (strong economy, quality of life, etc) with amount of government regulation (taxes, social programs, etc...). You know what I think is the most significant factor? Corruption. And you can have that in governments or businesses. If money is put into the hands of the corrupt, things don't go well for the country. Just limiting government will not solve this problem.

Well one thing is proven fact, and that is that BIG GOVERNMENT definately does not work! Anyone who thinks for example that government run health care will be a good thing needs to take a look at LA County hospitals, County USC, and MLK. You have really sick people laying in the halls, and people waiting months for necessary surgeries.

This has also been proven time, and time again in Canada, and Europe. Yes everyone has health care, but necessary surgeries and treatments take months, forget about elective procedures. In fact many of these countries are now shifting back to private medical plans to improve service.
Competition is key to better performance, and when government gets involved competition is discouraged which leads to complacency and indiffernce.

I think the real question should be: What example of BIG GOVERNMENT can you show as an example that is working?
Ironically, the people who really appreciate capitalism and democracy are those countries which were once part of the soviet block countries. They realize the cost of freedom. 8)
All these government hand outs, and so-called programs really only hurt the people they were intended to help, by making them dependant on government. The racism of low expectations. They are not expected to succeed so, they don't even try.

Just my opinion. 8)

JMunaretto · Post by **JMunaretto** » Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:14 pm

I'm not claiming that countries that tax more than the U.S. are better off, I'm just saying you have to show me evidence that a country if better off with low tax than Scandinavian countries. They all have high ratings in a lot of areas. GDP, quality of life, life expectancy, etc...

I'm not saying their better. What I'm saying is, if you try to do a correlation between taxation and some other variable indicating economic performance / social condition, I'm note sure you'll find much. I'm not saying it doesn't matter, I'm just saying under the current situations in most countries, it's not clear. So again, not much evidence that its obvious less government is better. The idea sounds nice. I personally would like to reduce government, but not to the levels where it has no power.