BLAG

BLAG Forums
It is currently Thu Dec 18, 2014 7:38 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 8:38 pm
Posts: 373
Location: Athol, Massachusetts, USA
jebba wrote:
This is actually incorrect. He does not want to take any take away any current OBLIGATIONS, he just wants to make it so people can OPT-OUT if they want to (e.g. most young people). Current obligations would be paid--in fact, he also argues he has never spent any money out of the social security trust fund, unlike other politicians that plundered it so they could give away another handout to some corporation.

..


That's the same logic that Bush used. The problem is that Social Security pays the current recipients from the money received from people paying into it. If you drastically reduce the amount being paid in you condemn the whole system. But that's what they want. They want to bankrupt the system. The Republicans have hated social security from day one. And so do libertarians. Unfortunately most elderly people depend on their Social Security income.

Here's Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul and Social Security:
Quote:
There’s a lot more. Take Social Security. If he means what he says literally, then widows, orphans, the disabled who didn’t themselves pay into Social Security should not benefit (or of course those awful illegal aliens). His claims about SS being “broken” are just false. He also wants to dismantle it, by undermining the social bonds on which it is based — the real meaning of offering younger workers other options, instead of having them pay for those who are retired, on the basis of a communal decision based on the principle that we should have concern for others in need. He wants people to be able to run around freely with assault rifles, on the basis of a distorted reading of the Second Amendment (and while we’re at it, why not abolish the whole raft of constitutional provisions and amendments, since they were all enacted in ways he opposes?).

_________________
Ed LaBonte


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:07 am
Posts: 699
jebba wrote:
ewl wrote:
federal retirement checks that I have coming to me. It's not the best system in the world but Ron Paul's plan will end up taking it all away from me


This is actually incorrect. He does not want to take any take away any current OBLIGATIONS, he just wants to make it so people can OPT-OUT if they want to (e.g. most young people). Current obligations would be paid--in fact, he also argues he has never spent any money out of the social security trust fund, unlike other politicians that plundered it so they could give away another handout to some corporation.

At some point I want to answer the larger questions that i've seen here...


I would say that Ron Paul is the only person running for president that has a concrete plan to meet current obligations by massively reducing spending. No one else has a plan for balancing the books while the baby boomers are going through. The only other way to save the system would be to allow massive immigration (which is a political non starter)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 3:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 8:38 pm
Posts: 373
Location: Athol, Massachusetts, USA
noldrin wrote:
I would say that Ron Paul is the only person running for president that has a concrete plan to meet current obligations by massively reducing spending. No one else has a plan for balancing the books while the baby boomers are going through. The only other way to save the system would be to allow massive immigration (which is a political non starter)


Right, massively reducing spending, how original. Guess which sector of society will bear the brunt of those spending cuts!

In fact social security is not in trouble. If you do what Ron Paul wants to do, which is exactly the same as what George W. Bush wanted to do (did you support George Bush's plan to "reform" social security?) then you will bankrupt it. But otherwise it's good at least until the 2040s without any changes. And it will be good indefinitely with some minor adjustments like removing the income cap (people who make over $85,000 are only taxed as if they made $85,000). Of course that means that wealthy people pay more into the system. I doubt that's something Ron Paul would approve of...

_________________
Ed LaBonte


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:13 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 4492
Location: Loveland, Colorado, USA
ewl wrote:
Right, massively reducing spending, how original. Guess which sector of society will bear the brunt of those spending cuts!


The military industrial complex. Paul has said repeatedly that he does not want put anyone on the street and the only way the government can afford to support people is by huge cuts to the military (like hundreds of billions of dollars).

ewl wrote:
In fact social security is not in trouble.


That is simply not true. There is a generation that will be retiring in the next decade or so and the group that has to support them is far smaller.

ewl wrote:
If you do what Ron Paul wants to do, which is exactly the same as what George W. Bush wanted to do (did you support George Bush's plan to "reform" social security?)


Paul's plan is completely different from GWB's plan. The latter obviously doesn't want to cut the military at all (in fact he wants to expand it), whereas Paul wants to do huge dramatic cuts such as shutting down over 700 bases outside of the US.

ewl wrote:
then you will bankrupt it. But otherwise it's good at least until the 2040s without any changes.


Actually, no its not because they spent the money that was supposed to be saved for this.

ewl wrote:
And it will be good indefinitely with some minor adjustments like removing the income cap (people who make over $85,000 are only taxed as if they made $85,000). Of course that means that wealthy people pay more into the system. I doubt that's something Ron Paul would approve of...


You are so off-mark against Ron Paul if you think he's advocating these things for the wealthy. I realize a tax cutting republican is generally someone who is trying to help the super rich, but this is not the case with Paul. In fact, he's continually submitting various bills to eliminate taxes for people, such as no taxes on tips (for waiters and such).

I think you really misunderstand Ron Paul the person and where he is coming from. He is the most anti-corporate candidate running.

-Jeff


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 4:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 8:38 pm
Posts: 373
Location: Athol, Massachusetts, USA
noldrin wrote:


I finally got a chance to watch this all the way through. A point of history just to demonstrate the fact that at least on this issue, Ron Paul is not taking a principled stand, he's either being completely disingenuous, or he's completely ignorant of U.S. history. He says that the federal government should have bought the slaves from the slave owners like the British Empire did. He neglects to mention that the British Empire was free to do that because the colonies over which it imposed this ruling (slavery had been outlawed in England itself sometime before this) did not have representation in British Parliament, nor did they have property rights to those slaves which were inviolable under the British constitution (which is unwritten). The federal government couldn't constitutionally eliminate slavery in the southern states by any means. And Lincoln never threatened to do so. In fact the southern states had (unconstitutionally) seceded from the union before Lincoln's inauguration. The civil war was fought on the Northern side to maintain the union. On the southern side it was fought over the rights of the south to extend slavery into the western territories. That was the only issue that the Republican Party (which was then the antislavery party) had run on. And the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court had pretty much guaranteed that the south could do just that. Why would the slave owners have wanted to sell their slaves to the U.S. government when they had grandiose plans on extending it into the territories. The south was completely committed to extending slavery west and south (into Cuba and Mexico) by any means necessary, and they seceded because they no longer had control of the U.S. congress and Presidency and couldn't do that without creating their own country over which they did have control.

Ron Paul's stand on this is a classic "Lost Cause" argument still very prevalent in certain sectors of southern society.

_________________
Ed LaBonte


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:04 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 4492
Location: Loveland, Colorado, USA
ewl wrote:
noldrin wrote:


I finally got a chance to watch this all the way through. A point of history just to demonstrate the fact that at least on this issue, Ron Paul is not taking a principled stand, he's either being completely disingenuous, or he's completely ignorant of U.S. history. He says that the federal government should have bought the slaves from the slave owners like the British Empire did. He neglects to mention that the British Empire was free to do that because the colonies over which it imposed this ruling (slavery had been outlawed in England itself sometime before this) did not have representation in British Parliament, nor did they have property rights to those slaves which were inviolable under the British constitution (which is unwritten). The federal government couldn't constitutionally eliminate slavery in the southern states by any means. And Lincoln never threatened to do so. In fact the southern states had (unconstitutionally) seceded from the union before Lincoln's inauguration. The civil war was fought on the Northern side to maintain the union. On the southern side it was fought over the rights of the south to extend slavery into the western territories. That was the only issue that the Republican Party (which was then the antislavery party) had run on. And the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court had pretty much guaranteed that the south could do just that. Why would the slave owners have wanted to sell their slaves to the U.S. government when they had grandiose plans on extending it into the territories. The south was completely committed to extending slavery west and south (into Cuba and Mexico) by any means necessary, and they seceded because they no longer had control of the U.S. congress and Presidency and couldn't do that without creating their own country over which they did have control.

Ron Paul's stand on this is a classic "Lost Cause" argument still very prevalent in certain sectors of southern society.


Well, I think his point is more that it could have been ended another way other than killing 600,000 people and that the rest of the world was able to abolish slavery without a war. He has also been like "this is kind of absurd to talk about this since we have so much going on, and this is past history and there is nothing anyone can do about it now". Plus the myth is that Lincoln fought to get rid of slavery, which is untrue.

-Jeff


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:19 pm
Posts: 151
Location: Chicago
Quote:
the most anti-corporate candidate running

...who just happens to favor unrestricted free market capitalism, with no minimum wage, no labor laws, no guarantee of medical or retirement insurance or education, the inviolability of "private property", etc etc etc. All of those changes would naturally benefit the poor and the rich equally, right? The fact that it has overwhelmingly been the rich and super rich among the bourgeoisie who have favored such a system for the past two hundred years has nothing to do with the fact that they would benefit most from such a system. It's just a big coincidence.

No, wait, it's not a coincidence--it's because the rich people are smarter! Smart people see things the way they really are, and that's why they get rich! As for poor people, who don't support the unrestricted free market and don't realize that all wealth and civilization rest on preserving the sanctity of private property, well, they clearly (I won't say "lack the capacity", because some of you might take it the wrong way) are disinclined to look at things reasonably. With hope, they might learn. Of course you can't force me to spend MY money to educate them--that would be immoral.

But then again, as a holder of property, it is in my interest to let poor people know that they must respect property rights above all else. So maybe I would pay for them to get educated about THAT. Really, though, it's not about my interest--it would be for THEIR own good. I would be doing them a favor. I care about them.


Last edited by contents on Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 8:38 pm
Posts: 373
Location: Athol, Massachusetts, USA
jebba wrote:
ewl wrote:
In fact social security is not in trouble.


That is simply not true. There is a generation that will be retiring in the next decade or so and the group that has to support them is far smaller.

...

Paul's plan is completely different from GWB's plan. The latter obviously doesn't want to cut the military at all (in fact he wants to expand it), whereas Paul wants to do huge dramatic cuts such as shutting down over 700 bases outside of the US.

ewl wrote:
then you will bankrupt it. But otherwise it's good at least until the 2040s without any changes.


Actually, no its not because they spent the money that was supposed to be saved for this.


It hasn't been spent, it's been borrowed against. It's possible that the federal government will reneg on it's t-bills, but that will have far worse repercussions than they would be willing to put up with. Yes, the total deficit will be difficult to pay off, and I think large cuts in defense will be necessary to do that. But renegging on t-bills will put the government in a position where it will no longer be able to borrow because nobody will trust it.

And you're wrong about the long term financial status of social security. The numbers I'm using were the numbers that Bush used to try to prove that Social Security was insoluble. They're good "conservative" estimates.

jebba wrote:
You are so off-mark against Ron Paul if you think he's advocating these things for the wealthy. I realize a tax cutting republican is generally someone who is trying to help the super rich, but this is not the case with Paul. In fact, he's continually submitting various bills to eliminate taxes for people, such as no taxes on tips (for waiters and such).

I think you really misunderstand Ron Paul the person and where he is coming from. He is the most anti-corporate candidate running.
-Jeff


I don't know if he is or if he isn't. I know his economic policies would be devastating for poor, the disabled and the elderly, like those of most libertarians. Do you happen to know how he made his money, or where it's invested? I can't find anything on it.

_________________
Ed LaBonte


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:46 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 4492
Location: Loveland, Colorado, USA
ewl wrote:
It hasn't been spent, it's been borrowed against. It's possible that the federal government will reneg on it's t-bills, but that will have far worse repercussions than they would be willing to put up with. Yes, the total deficit will be difficult to pay off, and I think large cuts in defense will be necessary to do that. But renegging on t-bills will put the government in a position where it will no longer be able to borrow because nobody will trust it.


They will not reneg on the t-bills, they will just print enough money to cover them. So they will be paid, but with money worth far less.

ewl wrote:
I don't know if he is or if he isn't. I know his economic policies would be devastating for poor, the disabled and the elderly, like those of most libertarians.


I think quite the opposite. The poor get screwed because they can't save and get put in debt. Any money they save gets depreciated away via devaluing the dollar. Their prices go up. They get minimal returns from the banks. They dont have enough money to invest in the stock market which protects more than bank accounts against inflation (e.g. the dollar depreciates by 10% but the market goes up by that). He would give them a sound currency to build from and wouldn't be robbing them to give to corporations. The actual poor people that need support get fuckall from the government currently, yet huge sums are taken from people in their name.

ewl wrote:
Do you happen to know how he made his money, or where it's invested? I can't find anything on it.


He is a medical doctor, and has been for decades (he was a flight surgeon during vietnam). He has most of his money in gold or gold stocks because he considers it a good store of value.

Here's an older video from 1995, but it's very good. He's being interviewed by a graduate student for a class related to economics. Paul has plenty of time to speak because the interviewer is trying to learn from him. The interviewer isn't clueless about the issues so the questions are good. This is one of his best explanations of the "gold standard" and the history behind it. Very informative:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF5pwDCpz4s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-M8En38oFQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH6iEbP9ozw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojtxgCYeagE

Brown leather, ya man! He was retro before it was cool. ;)

-Jeff


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 6:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:19 pm
Posts: 151
Location: Chicago
Quote:
it could have been ended another way other than killing 600,000 people and that the rest of the world was able to abolish slavery without a war.


Sorry, who's was responsible for the 600,000 deaths? How about: the white people who took up arms to maintain the enslavement of Africans! Nowhere else in the world was there such a huge and powerful group of slave owners willing to and capable of raising an army to fight and kill to preserve the slave system. The slave owners would not have gone for a "buyback" in 1860. How long would you have waited? Or would you just offer to pay them more? And more? And more? Until "market forces" made the buyback more attractive?

The idea of ending slavery with a buyback is absolutely appalling, and an affront to all decent human values, and even libertarian values. You want to reward someone for accepting the great burden foisted upon them by making them give up their slaves. "You poor slave masters! Can I give you some money to make it better? To make sure that taking away your slaves doesn't affect the quality of your lifestyle?"

"But that would have been necessary to preserve peace!" What peace? The "peace" that never existed in the first place under the slave system? The "peace" that was broken when slave owners took up arms to preserve their system of kidnapping and murder? Would a libertarian agree that violence is permissible to stop kidnapping and murder? Or should you just pay the kidnapper and murderer a lot of money to cut it out and "preserve the peace"?

And don't say my sentiments are ahistorical--John Brown and Fredrick Douglass were historical enough. Brown's solution--doing everything he could to foment slave revolt--was the only moral way to end slavery. And Brown's own failed effort struck fear into the hearts of the slave owners, and helped bring the situation to a head.

And don't chide me for belaboring this point. Paul went out of his way to tell people what he thought of the Civil War. It's not as if reporters go around asking candidates what they think of the Civil War. Paul's argument is abhorrent. And coming from a guy who also says that the Civil Rights Act was an assault on "individual liberty" it's even more abhorrent. Even if he's not a racist, the fact that he says these things pleases racists, and it's no coincidence if racists like him.


Last edited by contents on Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 6:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:19 pm
Posts: 151
Location: Chicago
Quote:
I think quite the opposite. The poor get screwed because they can't save and get put in debt. Any money they save gets depreciated away via devaluing the dollar. Their prices go up. They get minimal returns from the banks. They dont have enough money to invest in the stock market which protects more than bank accounts against inflation (e.g. the dollar depreciates by 10% but the market goes up by that). He would give them a sound currency to build from and wouldn't be robbing them to give to corporations. The actual poor people that need support get fuckall from the government currently, yet huge sums are taken from people in their name.


Let me ask you, jebba, Do you believe in the concept of social class? Or do you, like Paul, think it's just a bunch of Marxist dogma? Do you really think that the poor are poor because they're punished by government programs? That the problem with capitalism today is that it's not capitalist enough? That if genuine "market forces" were given full play, then the poor as a class, free from the heavy burden the government has placed upon them, would start saving their newfound money, investing and reaping the glorious benefits of the stock market, and become prosperous like everyone else?

Do you think that it's even a little bit possible that people trained in "neo-classical" economics, like the economics graduate students fawning over Paul in your video, are imbued with an ideology that represents the interests of the capitalist class?


Last edited by contents on Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:07 am
Posts: 699
ewl wrote:
It hasn't been spent, it's been borrowed against. It's possible that the federal government will reneg on it's t-bills, but that will have far worse repercussions than they would be willing to put up with. Yes, the total deficit will be difficult to pay off, and I think large cuts in defense will be necessary to do that. But renegging on t-bills will put the government in a position where it will no longer be able to borrow because nobody will trust it.


The money is gone, and we are left with a bunch of IOU. The only way to get that money is to raise taxes on the smaller group of workers that are left. Right now benefits are going up far slower than the cost of living. If you are going to rely on social security in the direction you are going, you are going to have an abysmal retirement. Raising the cap is going to be fairly ineffective in the long term as many high income people get their money their capital gains and dividend, which don't get hit through payroll taxes such as Social Security.

In we continue on our current path, the taxes are going to be say high on the workers left that they will be living a lower standard of living in order to keep the old folks paid off. You'll likely end up with riots and people burning down old folks homes.

My preferred method of dealing with is to start to rev up immigration and start getting young people to move here now. That way the numbers will work out. But if you try to suggest increases immigration, people will scream bloody murder.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:07 am
Posts: 699
contents wrote:
Quote:
the most anti-corporate candidate running

...who just happens to favor unrestricted free market capitalism, with no minimum wage, no labor laws, no guarantee of medical or retirement insurance or education, the inviolability of "private property", etc etc etc. All of those changes would naturally benefit the poor and the rich equally, right? The fact that it has overwhelmingly been the rich and super rich among the bourgeoisie who have favored such a system for the past two hundred years has nothing to do with the fact that they would benefit most from such a system. It's just a big coincidence.


Government has done an abyssmal job protecting us for corporations. Maybe we got a few rights, but we got that through the labor movement, and the labor movement was only able to do that once the government stopped breaking uo their strikes with armed forces. But in turn corporations has used the government to loot our pockets and coffers.

The only way workers will ever be protected isn't when the government is protecting us from corporations, it's when the workers own their own businesses. When corporations aren't fictional people and the people who own them have the liability for there actions.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:33 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 4492
Location: Loveland, Colorado, USA
contents wrote:
Paul went out of his way to tell people what he thought of the Civil War.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0s5NZVo1OI

ron paul wrote:
"You what I find utterly remarkable is I don't remember ever giving a speech or writing an article on the civil war, and yet this was brought up and said I was quoted as saying something and I did respond. You know we got a war going on in Afghanistan, Iraq, possibly in Iran, we have Pakistan blowing up, and Turkey is invading Iraq, and then somebody brings one word up about maybe I said something, but the truth is..." (then cut off).


He doesn't go out of his way to bring it up.

contents wrote:
It's not as if reporters go around asking candidates what they think of the Civil War.


In fact, I've never even heard him bring it up a single time. Reporters don't go around asking candidates what they think of the Civil War, they just ask Ron Paul what he thinks about the Civil War since they know he has outside the mainstream views and then they'll use that to make him look as bad as possible about an issue that isn't very relevant to what's really going on (e.g. they'd rather debate him about the Civil War than any current war). I've seen it brought up at least three times in this election cycle. The first time was when he was first on Bill Maher in March or so. The other two were Meet the Press and after that MSNBC. I'm not aware of any writings he's done about it. So how exactly is he going out of his way to tell people? It's armchair history... It's a bit like "what if hitler wasn't born?" type of question.

Anyway, like he says, it's pretty ridiculous to even be arguing it since no one could possibly know "what if".

For my part I don't think slaves should have been bought out either, as that is also offensive. On the flipside, Lincoln is portrayed as someone who's goal was to free the slaves, when in reality his goal was to "preserve the union" and he would have kept slavery if it would have kept the union together.

-Jeff


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:46 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 3:17 pm
Posts: 4492
Location: Loveland, Colorado, USA
cnet says that RP's #1 group of contributors is Google employees, followed by people serving in the Army, followed by people serving in the Navy. No "industry" per se is supporting him at all.

http://www.news.com/Googlers-stump-in-N ... 24935.html


Now why would people in the Navy and Army be supporting him far MORE THAN ANY OTHER CANDIDATE IN EITHER PARTY? Because they want to GET THE FUCK OUT of where they are, know Paul is sincere when he says he wants to bring all military home, and see this as PRIORITY NUMBER ONE.

When that's over, we can debate the civil war and social security (since Paul is not advocating anything that would shut down Social Security immediately we can get to exactly how to sort that).

Now against the argument that we shouldn't be voting at all, I don't really have a response other than I've not voted for a long time and the last time I voted I cast a blank ballot. I hear you on the "voting is sheeple" argument, and I pretty much agree. But if someone comes along who is sincere, favors radically changing many fundamental problems in the country (huge prison complex, military killing abroad, torture, spying, police state, etc) to something more sane, well, I'll support him. It's not that far from anarchy, and we'd likely have to head in that direction if there will ever be anarchy in the usa.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 120 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group