EISPIRATEN

Yet another personal opinion...

Keep in mind that in the U.S. our 'motto' is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In contrast, take the french motto: Liberté, égalité, fraternité or liberty, equality, fraternity (brotherhood). Equality of what? Do they mean social/economic equality - I'd say yes given their socialist leanings (along with most of the rest of the euros).

I'm certain this country wasn't built on that same principal. Equality yes, but in value of human life, not income and social status (i.e not everyone has an inalienable right to own an Ipod or a house).

HikeUp wrote:Yet another personal opinion...

Keep in mind that in the U.S. our 'motto' is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In contrast, take the french motto: Liberté, égalité, fraternité or liberty, equality, fraternity (brotherhood). Equality of what? Do they mean social/economic equality - I'd say yes given their socialist leanings (along with most of the rest of the euros).

I'm certain this country wasn't built on that same principal. Equality yes, but in value of human life, not income and social status (i.e not everyone has an inalienable right to own an Ipod or a house).

True. French model was based on equality. The American model was based on Liberty. We all have the right to pursue happiness. We are in that way accountable for our own happiness. As long as opportunities are there for us we can succeed, based on our efforts.

http://perotcharts.com/challenges/

Nice presentation.

Bill wrote:We are in that way accountable for our own happiness. As long as opportunities are there for us we can succeed, based on our efforts.

Yes. Hope won't get you a house.

I hear CHANGE will get me a job, though.

AW wrote: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.

This is a misleading statement. It implies that Ron Paul does not care about the poor or Katrina victims, when he just believes there is a better and more efficient way to do this than through FEMA. Here is his statement on Katrina: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul275.html

Basically his point is the FEMA will just screw up the aid anyway (which it did just like he predicted) and the federal government has NO MONEY to provide this money in the first place. There are numerous articles on how FEMA was a disaster and how there were numerous instances of fraud and corruption.

The problem is we're now use to the government being the safety net for everything. And if you're against this and in favor of self-sufficiency, you are labeled as "uncompassionate." I agree that the government has the responsibility to help people that are in immediate danger of their lives (like the immediate days after Katrina and even then their response was horrendous). Beyond that, people should be responsible for themselves. If an earthquake leveled my house right now, I would never expect the government or anyone else to give me a handout to rebuild my house. It is my responsible to have gotten insurance or take the risk.

This op-ed makes a good point:

We all want to see New Orleans rebuilt, but it does not follow that this requires more than $100 billion in federal aid. Chicago was burned to the ground in 1871; San Francisco was leveled by an earthquake in 1906; and in 1900 Galveston, Texas, was razed by a hurricane even more ferocious than Katrina. In each instance, these proud cities were rebuilt rapidly and to even greater glory -- with hardly any federal money.

AW wrote: If he wants to get rid of educational payments, that would be par for his course

Another misleading statement. My defense is the same as above. The Department of Education has grown by enormous amounts with huge increases in funding year after year. What has this gotten us? The No Child Left Behind program which almost everyone (including teachers) says is a complete failure and actually hurts schools more than it helps. Even the DOE's own 2008 study, “Reading First Impact Study: Interim Report,” concluded that the Reading First Program, a major billion dollar a year NCLB effort, had proven "ineffective."

Ron Paul simply says education is the responsibility of the States and the local government. Every community is different so the best way to figure out how to help our schools is the community itself, instead of the one-size fits all mandates from the federal government.

AW wrote: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.

But we are forced to, according to Obama who wants to "spread the wealth around." He favors a tax code that penalizes one group to benefit another. Other politicians do the same, but favor the rich over the poor. I favor a tax code that is equal and fair to everyone. I favor a free market system that is fair to everyone, instead of subsidies and tax breaks to special interest. Obama supported the Farm Bill and the Energy Bill which has tons of subsidies for agribusiness, oil and gas industries.

AW wrote:If Ron Paul wants to ignore the military as commander-in-chief, thats not someone I hope is elected.

Another misleading statement. Ron Paul and the people who believe in non-interventionism are not weak nor want to ignore the military. It's exactly the opposite. We want a strong defense that is only used if we are attacked. Iraq and Iran have never attacked us. We're now the bully that goes around beating everyone up just because they look at us funny or to intimidate others from beating us up first.

Fighting constant wars all over the world just makes our military weaker because we're spread so thin. A true Commander-In-Chief would recognize this. He'd know that as you become weaker, you no longer have a credible deterrent against future enemies who might want to attack you. Deterrent is what prevented WW III during the Cold War.

More importantly, people have to think about the root cause of terrorism. Think about why they are able to recruit all these people to fight against us. Perhaps we have done something to piss them off? Oh no, of course not, our foreign policy is never wrong! If we believe this, then there is no hope for ending terrorism in the long run.

AW wrote: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.

I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's views either and it would be unrealistic to expect to do so with any person. I don’t want to privatize the National Parks, but I doubt that's high on his list to do.

That last statement is again, misleading and really not cool, man. Calling someone a racist and then linking Libertarianism to the Confederacy without any further explanation is just inflammatory. The controversy is over some political newsletters in the name of Ron Paul, from the early 90's that had a lot of racist remarks. Ron Paul claims he never wrote those newsletters. I admit those newsletters had his name on them so he had a responsibility to make sure he knew what was being said.

But it doesn't make sense to me why he would be a racist. His views are always based on these hardcore principles of liberty and the Constitution. Liberty means freedom and individual rights for all regardless of who you are. Libertarians see people as individuals. Thus, rights are individual rights, not gay rights, not minority rights, etc. Grouping people into labels like this is collectivism and is totally opposite from the libertarian view. Here is what Ron Paul wrote in 2002 about racism: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html

Yes, the Confederacy took on many Libertarian views, but Libertarianism was not "born" there. It was originally employed by late Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believe in free will, as opposed to determinism. The term libertarian was first popularized in France in the 1890's in order to counter and evade the anti-anarchist laws known as the lois scélérates.

Tim wrote:

AW wrote: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.

This is a misleading statement. It implies that Ron Paul does not care about the poor or Katrina victims, when he just believes there is a better and more efficient way to do this than through FEMA. Here is his statement on Katrina: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul275.html

Basically his point is the FEMA will just screw up the aid anyway (which it did just like he predicted) and the federal government has NO MONEY to provide this money in the first place. There are numerous articles on how FEMA was a disaster and how there were numerous instances of fraud and corruption.

The problem is we're now use to the government being the safety net for everything. And if you're against this and in favor of self-sufficiency, you are labeled as "uncompassionate." I agree that the government has the responsibility to help people that are in immediate danger of their lives (like the immediate days after Katrina and even then their response was horrendous). Beyond that, people should be responsible for themselves. If an earthquake leveled my house right now, I would never expect the government or anyone else to give me a handout to rebuild my house. It is my responsible to have gotten insurance or take the risk.

This op-ed makes a good point:

We all want to see New Orleans rebuilt, but it does not follow that this requires more than $100 billion in federal aid. Chicago was burned to the ground in 1871; San Francisco was leveled by an earthquake in 1906; and in 1900 Galveston, Texas, was razed by a hurricane even more ferocious than Katrina. In each instance, these proud cities were rebuilt rapidly and to even greater glory -- with hardly any federal money.

AW wrote: If he wants to get rid of educational payments, that would be par for his course

Another misleading statement. My defense is the same as above. The Department of Education has grown by enormous amounts with huge increases in funding year after year. What has this gotten us? The No Child Left Behind program which almost everyone (including teachers) says is a complete failure and actually hurts schools more than it helps. Even the DOE's own 2008 study, “Reading First Impact Study: Interim Report,” concluded that the Reading First Program, a major billion dollar a year NCLB effort, had proven "ineffective."

Ron Paul simply says education is the responsibility of the States and the local government. Every community is different so the best way to figure out how to help our schools is the community itself, instead of the one-size fits all mandates from the federal government.

AW wrote: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.

But we are forced to, according to Obama who wants to "spread the wealth around." He favors a tax code that penalizes one group to benefit another. Other politicians do the same, but favor the rich over the poor. I favor a tax code that is equal and fair to everyone. I favor a free market system that is fair to everyone, instead of subsidies and tax breaks to special interest. Obama supported the Farm Bill and the Energy Bill which has tons of subsidies for agribusiness, oil and gas industries.

AW wrote:If Ron Paul wants to ignore the military as commander-in-chief, thats not someone I hope is elected.

Another misleading statement. Ron Paul and the people who believe in non-interventionism are not weak nor want to ignore the military. It's exactly the opposite. We want a strong defense that is only used if we are attacked. Iraq and Iran have never attacked us. We're now the bully that goes around beating everyone up just because they look at us funny or to intimidate others from beating us up first.

Fighting constant wars all over the world just makes our military weaker because we're spread so thin. A true Commander-In-Chief would recognize this. He'd know that as you become weaker, you no longer have a credible deterrent against future enemies who might want to attack you. Deterrent is what prevented WW III during the Cold War.

More importantly, people have to think about the root cause of terrorism. Think about why they are able to recruit all these people to fight against us. Perhaps we have done something to piss them off? Oh no, of course not, our foreign policy is never wrong! If we believe this, then there is no hope for ending terrorism in the long run.

AW wrote: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.

I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's views either and it would be unrealistic to expect to do so with any person. I don’t want to privatize the National Parks, but I doubt that's high on his list to do.

That last statement is again, misleading and really not cool, man. Calling someone a racist and then linking Libertarianism to the Confederacy without any further explanation is just inflammatory. The controversy is over some political newsletters in the name of Ron Paul, from the early 90's that had a lot of racist remarks. Ron Paul claims he never wrote those newsletters. I admit those newsletters had his name on them so he had a responsibility to make sure he knew what was being said.

But it doesn't make sense to me why he would be a racist. His views are always based on these hardcore principles of liberty and the Constitution. Liberty means freedom and individual rights for all regardless of who you are. Libertarians see people as individuals. Thus, rights are individual rights, not gay rights, not minority rights, etc. Grouping people into labels like this is collectivism and is totally opposite from the libertarian view. Here is what Ron Paul wrote in 2002 about racism: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html

Yes, the Confederacy took on many Libertarian views, but Libertarianism was not "born" there. It was originally employed by late Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believe in free will, as opposed to determinism. The term libertarian was first popularized in France in the 1890's in order to counter and evade the anti-anarchist laws known as the lois scélérates.

Tim,
Don't take this the wrong way, I know your just making a point here in defense of Ron Paul. But if you vote for him, you may as well just take your ballot and bury it in the back yard! Maybe in that way it will do some good, as it decomposes and provides nourishment for some plant or squirrel or something. Can you say, Ross Perot?
Third party candidates are fail(as our administrator would say) Really we have only two real choices here (some of us wish there were better choices) any other choice is a wasted vote (unless you just want to feel better)

Tim,

I was not quoting any supposed newsletters he may have or not contributed to. That quote I mentioned...he said it was taken out of context...without mentioning the context of course...but lets say this is what he really said...'Opinion polls are silly. Why, opinon polls say only 5%..."...thats not going to get him away from that statement...given another statement he said was taken out of context...and that he may have written "part" of those letters.

But putting that all aside, for Katrina, what Im trying to point out is community triumphs at certain times. Regardless of whether anyone should be living there or have insurance, the only solution was for the military to rescue them. His criticism of the aftermath is seperate(and I agree with some of it). Government is not always the answer, but sometimes is. As a community, we need to make sure our food is safe, our financial markets arent rigged,etc.

So what dont we need then? Thats the point of congress, to check and 'balance'. Thats where the change will come from...when both sides reform where we are over-involved and under-involved to the appropiate balance.

As the presentation pointed out we are over-involved as a whole, especially in Medicare....but that doesnt mean gut everything so we are way under-involved.

I do expect the government to help me if I need help in disaster response. Should I be responsible to find my own way to a hospital if Im injured..and god forbid I forgot my med ins card, then I dont get any help?

With all this, I'm gonna assume people can agree that we need some level of taxation. Is that debatable? We agree that we need some level of government. So, no more question about taxes, but about their level. Same for government. So it's about a relative quantity.

As for wealth redistribution, we could say some are for no redistribution. Fine, but you will still pay taxes - do you expect to receive back from the government exactly what you put in? I'm not saying you shouldn't, but do you think that maybe even with a 'flat tax', that money may end up helping the poor more than you? So is that not fair any longer?

The point is, as long as there is some government (aka, not anarchy), you will basically have some form of wealth redistribution. It's just about the level. There will always be 'some' level of a safety net. Speaking in absolutes doesn't mean much.

And there's nothing wrong with voting for a candidate who doesn't 'have a chance'. Lord, how do you think things change? If 20% of the public starts voting for libertarian candidates at all levels of the government, you can sure bet that there will be adaptations in the other parties platforms to appease those voters. Some people may like feeling oppressed and controlled, but please don't try to put that on others.

What then is governments role?

I submit that it is limited to national defense, and public security.
Security from attacks from abroad.(military)
Public security. (Police and Fire protection)
Infrastructure. (roads, bridges, sewage etc.)
Provide liberty, so we can pursue our dreams, as long as they do not affect other peoples freedom.
Making of, interpreting of, and enforcing laws. Laws created for our protection, from representatives elected by the people.
Taxes are necessary for those things, and as you mentioned as a safety netbut for a limited time, and under limited circumstances. Welfare was never meant to be a permanent solution to poverty. In many ways it has created a situation whereby as mentioned in the video self worth is diminished, and a whole group of people have become dependant.
Also, increasingly progressive taxing schemes discourage incentive for individuals, and small businesses to work harder to acheive the American dream.(and provide jobs) If I work too hard I will put myself in a higher tax bracket?
Otherwise government should stay out of the way. 8)

This is what happens when you don't vote your conscious

I voted. 8)