Who do you want to win the 2012 U.S. Presidential election?
Who do you want to win for 2012?
0
To add to Ziggy's post.
This is the statement made by a certain president after he vetoed a Federal aid bill to Texans who were struck by a severe drought in the 1880's. Initially, congress passed the bill to allocate the sum of $10,000 to the struggling Texans. When the president vetoed the bill and asked the American people to donate to help their fellow country men the Texans received more than the $10,000 originally allotted (though I can't find an exact number but, I'll get back to you on that)
The moral here; When we make the effort to help our countrymen we are not only a better country but, a better people.
You might ask "What's the difference if I do it or the Government does it?" If the Government does it, then you really didn't do anything. You simply kicked the can down the road for the Government to pick up rather than picking the can up yourself.
This is the statement made by a certain president after he vetoed a Federal aid bill to Texans who were struck by a severe drought in the 1880's. Initially, congress passed the bill to allocate the sum of $10,000 to the struggling Texans. When the president vetoed the bill and asked the American people to donate to help their fellow country men the Texans received more than the $10,000 originally allotted (though I can't find an exact number but, I'll get back to you on that)
I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the general government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the government, the government should not support the people. The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood
The moral here; When we make the effort to help our countrymen we are not only a better country but, a better people.
You might ask "What's the difference if I do it or the Government does it?" If the Government does it, then you really didn't do anything. You simply kicked the can down the road for the Government to pick up rather than picking the can up yourself.
0
So what if the community doesn't help?
When I was a kid, we had canned food drives at my school every now and then, to provide food for the homeless or poor. A lot of people would donate, but a lot of the stuff was almost worthless, just stuff that the donaters themselves didn't want. Most people weren't really helping; they were looking in the backs of their cabinets and saying, "Hmm, I'm never going to use this pumpkin pie filling."
Also, people donate to things they see advertised, such as the Red Cross things that only involve texting, but how often do people donate to local organizations? How often do people go to a church and give them money for the express purpose of helping the impoverished?
Finally, what if the local groups cannot cover a bill? What if a person that needs to get their electricity bill paid goes to every church or local charity around and gets turned away at every single one, for whatever reason? The electricity just gets turned off. What if it's an enormous hospital bill? What if the family of the injured person reaches out to the community, but the money they receive is but a fraction of what they owe?
People can come through and make everybody feel like they live in the best country in the world, but they can also not come through, and people can die because others aren't helping enough. Because sometimes, people don't care about strangers, or they don't know about them because no news channel has done a story on them. If a man is in a coma, and the neighbors of the man do not pay the bill, then what happens? That must be considered, because people will not step up 100% of the time. How does it get paid? Or does it get paid at all? If a hospital bill cannot be paid, is it okay to let someone die?
Of course, all this doesn't really have anything to do with Ron Paul. The simple fact is that he dodged the question and didn't really answer it. He said that people shouldn't rely on the government, but then he said that people should rely on neighbors and churches. In my experience, neighbors and churches aren't too helpful. A person can get a welfare check every week, but some weeks, they may go to the church for help and get turned away.
When I was a kid, we had canned food drives at my school every now and then, to provide food for the homeless or poor. A lot of people would donate, but a lot of the stuff was almost worthless, just stuff that the donaters themselves didn't want. Most people weren't really helping; they were looking in the backs of their cabinets and saying, "Hmm, I'm never going to use this pumpkin pie filling."
Also, people donate to things they see advertised, such as the Red Cross things that only involve texting, but how often do people donate to local organizations? How often do people go to a church and give them money for the express purpose of helping the impoverished?
Finally, what if the local groups cannot cover a bill? What if a person that needs to get their electricity bill paid goes to every church or local charity around and gets turned away at every single one, for whatever reason? The electricity just gets turned off. What if it's an enormous hospital bill? What if the family of the injured person reaches out to the community, but the money they receive is but a fraction of what they owe?
People can come through and make everybody feel like they live in the best country in the world, but they can also not come through, and people can die because others aren't helping enough. Because sometimes, people don't care about strangers, or they don't know about them because no news channel has done a story on them. If a man is in a coma, and the neighbors of the man do not pay the bill, then what happens? That must be considered, because people will not step up 100% of the time. How does it get paid? Or does it get paid at all? If a hospital bill cannot be paid, is it okay to let someone die?
Of course, all this doesn't really have anything to do with Ron Paul. The simple fact is that he dodged the question and didn't really answer it. He said that people shouldn't rely on the government, but then he said that people should rely on neighbors and churches. In my experience, neighbors and churches aren't too helpful. A person can get a welfare check every week, but some weeks, they may go to the church for help and get turned away.
0
Brittany
FAKKU Production Mngr
Neighbors and churches is just a general term to say from the private sector.
A personal example I can speak from is a program a hospital had for my mom who has a laundry list of health problems everything from cancer to chronic diseases. They had a program that doctors agreed upon that was based on income and whenever she had to go in for scans, or whatever she only had to pay a $5 copay. It had nothing to do with medicaid, medicare, or any other government program - it was just a program the hospital and doctors decided upon that was based on peoples income. She didn't have to run to a church or neighbor physically, but it was still the private sector that had no government involvement at all.
But if you want some more details from Ron Paul on something like that...
A personal example I can speak from is a program a hospital had for my mom who has a laundry list of health problems everything from cancer to chronic diseases. They had a program that doctors agreed upon that was based on income and whenever she had to go in for scans, or whatever she only had to pay a $5 copay. It had nothing to do with medicaid, medicare, or any other government program - it was just a program the hospital and doctors decided upon that was based on peoples income. She didn't have to run to a church or neighbor physically, but it was still the private sector that had no government involvement at all.
But if you want some more details from Ron Paul on something like that...
Ron Paul wrote...
Take arts funding, for example. Some Americans appear to believe that there would be no arts in America were it not for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), an institution created even though they were done another way throughout our country's existence, and throughout most of mankind's history. While the government requested $121 million for the NEA in 2006, private donations to the arts totaled $2.5 billion that year, dwarfing the NEA budget. The NEA represents a tiny fraction of all arts funding, a fact few Americans realize. Freedom works after all. And that money is almost certainly better spent than government money: NEA funds go not necessarily to the best artists, but to people who happen to be good at filling out government grant applications. I have my doubts that the same people populate both categories.
0
My my, lots of questions.
When I was a child my family routinely donated food staples to the local drives. Including, Brown Rice, canned vegetables, canned Fruit, etc. We were under the poverty level at the time but, gave what we could.
The problem you mentioned stems from a "someone else (Government) will do it" mentality that we are taught. "Why should I do it? That's the Government's job".
Everyday. If you mean how often do specific people donate then that can not have a clear answer as one uniform answer doesn't fit everyone. When I had steady employment I donated once a week and it wasn't some trivial amount.
Everyday, especially on Mondays, Wednesdays and Sundays (Primary days that Christian denominations meet at Church). Again unless you mean specific people. I personally don't donate to Churches since I am an Atheist and generally not welcomed. The more someone goes to church the more they are likely to donate though this is dependent on Church and person. Some churches give a majority of the money to the poor while others (i.e mega-churches) tend to donate less.
Yep, that happens when you don't pay utility bills. So what's the point you're trying to make here? People won't pay your utilities for you, therefore they are greedy? Who is supposed to pay YOUR utility bill? Your parents? Your neighbor? Your friends? The Government? No, you are responsible. You are supposed to pay your bills. Nothing gives you the right to use the State or Federal Government to use force of arms to deprive me of property that I traded hours of my life (worked) to acquire. If you still think other people are obligated to pay your utilities; my cable bill is due next month. Why don't you send me $40 for that. I mean, I DO have an obligation so you have an obligation to me right?
Then they get a fraction of what they owe. The alternative is Government will use force to deprive me of property to pay for someone strangers medical bills but, at a much less efficient rate since it has to pay for the large bureaucracy of unelected bureaucrats.
Bad things happen to good people but we can change that. People tend to not care because they simply pass the responsibility to the Government. The apathy to human suffering is an externality of the Government intervention. Most of the time the private aid to disaster areas surpasses the financial/material aid allotted by Federal Agencies.
Man is in a coma, family, friends, private organizations are unable to pay the bill. The hospital is stuck with the bill or the people are stuck with the bill. So you are saying that, this man, by being in a coma has the right to deprive others of their property simply because he is unable to pay his own bill?
There are three possible outcomes here.
The man's employer or insurance company will pay the medical bill for his duration in the hospital depending on their legal obligations.
2) The hospital eats the loss in hopes the man will wake up and can begin repaying the debt (assuming the man does NOT have insurance and the doctor believes the man will recover).
3). The Hospital requests the State or Federal Government to intervene and pay this man's medical bill which will take a long time due to the bureaucracy and the wrangling involved. Essentially this option is the Federal Government coming to me and point a gun to my head and telling me to pony up. Why use such an example? Because if I don't pay these "taxes" then I'll be arrested (i.e. Men with guns pointed at my head). It deprives me of the property I worked for and reduces the chances that I can use that money to pay for schooling, car repairs, or to pay my own utilities.
Personal experience does not make a strong argument on this subject. If you insist on playing that game. I have a personal friend in California whose mother was dropped from the Government dole, was denied disability, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, everything. His mother is comatose from pain due to a brain tumor. The glorious Government in their infinite wisdom deprived her of the aid she needs.
You tell me what's worse, a person who doesn't donated because they are not aware or someone who is aware and chooses to deny the aid?
Welfare is meant to be temporary assistance so you shouldn't be on welfare every week.
This is what I mean by "if we take care of our own, we are not only a better people but, a better country".
K-1 wrote...
When I was a kid, we had canned food drives at my school every now and then, to provide food for the homeless or poor. A lot of people would donate, but a lot of the stuff was almost worthless, just stuff that the donaters themselves didn't want. Most people weren't really helping; they were looking in the backs of their cabinets and saying, "Hmm, I'm never going to use this pumpkin pie filling."When I was a child my family routinely donated food staples to the local drives. Including, Brown Rice, canned vegetables, canned Fruit, etc. We were under the poverty level at the time but, gave what we could.
The problem you mentioned stems from a "someone else (Government) will do it" mentality that we are taught. "Why should I do it? That's the Government's job".
How often do people donate to local organizations?
Everyday. If you mean how often do specific people donate then that can not have a clear answer as one uniform answer doesn't fit everyone. When I had steady employment I donated once a week and it wasn't some trivial amount.
How often do people go to a church and give them money for the express purpose of helping the impoverished?
Everyday, especially on Mondays, Wednesdays and Sundays (Primary days that Christian denominations meet at Church). Again unless you mean specific people. I personally don't donate to Churches since I am an Atheist and generally not welcomed. The more someone goes to church the more they are likely to donate though this is dependent on Church and person. Some churches give a majority of the money to the poor while others (i.e mega-churches) tend to donate less.
Finally, what if the local groups cannot cover a bill? What if a person that needs to get their electricity bill paid goes to every church or local charity around and gets turned away at every single one, for whatever reason? The electricity just gets turned off.
Yep, that happens when you don't pay utility bills. So what's the point you're trying to make here? People won't pay your utilities for you, therefore they are greedy? Who is supposed to pay YOUR utility bill? Your parents? Your neighbor? Your friends? The Government? No, you are responsible. You are supposed to pay your bills. Nothing gives you the right to use the State or Federal Government to use force of arms to deprive me of property that I traded hours of my life (worked) to acquire. If you still think other people are obligated to pay your utilities; my cable bill is due next month. Why don't you send me $40 for that. I mean, I DO have an obligation so you have an obligation to me right?
What if it's an enormous hospital bill? What if the family of the injured person reaches out to the community, but the money they receive is but a fraction of what they owe?
Then they get a fraction of what they owe. The alternative is Government will use force to deprive me of property to pay for someone strangers medical bills but, at a much less efficient rate since it has to pay for the large bureaucracy of unelected bureaucrats.
People can come through and make everybody feel like they live in the best country in the world, but they can also not come through, and people can die because others aren't helping enough. Because sometimes, people don't care about strangers, or they don't know about them because no news channel has done a story on them.
Bad things happen to good people but we can change that. People tend to not care because they simply pass the responsibility to the Government. The apathy to human suffering is an externality of the Government intervention. Most of the time the private aid to disaster areas surpasses the financial/material aid allotted by Federal Agencies.
If a man is in a coma, and the neighbors of the man do not pay the bill, then what happens? That must be considered, because people will not step up 100% of the time. How does it get paid? Or does it get paid at all? If a hospital bill cannot be paid, is it okay to let someone die?
Man is in a coma, family, friends, private organizations are unable to pay the bill. The hospital is stuck with the bill or the people are stuck with the bill. So you are saying that, this man, by being in a coma has the right to deprive others of their property simply because he is unable to pay his own bill?
There are three possible outcomes here.
The man's employer or insurance company will pay the medical bill for his duration in the hospital depending on their legal obligations.
2) The hospital eats the loss in hopes the man will wake up and can begin repaying the debt (assuming the man does NOT have insurance and the doctor believes the man will recover).
3). The Hospital requests the State or Federal Government to intervene and pay this man's medical bill which will take a long time due to the bureaucracy and the wrangling involved. Essentially this option is the Federal Government coming to me and point a gun to my head and telling me to pony up. Why use such an example? Because if I don't pay these "taxes" then I'll be arrested (i.e. Men with guns pointed at my head). It deprives me of the property I worked for and reduces the chances that I can use that money to pay for schooling, car repairs, or to pay my own utilities.
In my experience, neighbors and churches aren't too helpful. A person can get a welfare check every week, but some weeks, they may go to the church for help and get turned away.
Personal experience does not make a strong argument on this subject. If you insist on playing that game. I have a personal friend in California whose mother was dropped from the Government dole, was denied disability, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, everything. His mother is comatose from pain due to a brain tumor. The glorious Government in their infinite wisdom deprived her of the aid she needs.
You tell me what's worse, a person who doesn't donated because they are not aware or someone who is aware and chooses to deny the aid?
A person can get a welfare check every week, but some weeks, they may go to the church for help and get turned away.
Welfare is meant to be temporary assistance so you shouldn't be on welfare every week.
This is what I mean by "if we take care of our own, we are not only a better people but, a better country".
Spoiler:
0
Brittany
FAKKU Production Mngr
I don't like the argument of someone needing aid, unable to afford it, thus is stealing from others by using the government and I feel that it is extreme. I've heard Neal Boortz say stuff like this and it's always made me just want to turn the radio off. "It's the persons fault for not having prepared x, y, and z. It's the person's fault for not having the funds"
I feel like it goes against the whole idea of helping the neighbor in the private sector.
I'd instead look at it as using the government as the middle man to transfer those funds to one person to another.
This however:
I can agree with.
I don't feel someones health and well being is anymore important than mine, personally. However, I don't think it's the governments responsibility to tell me how to use my money, and force my money to be spread wherever, and then possibly not even be used for what it's supposed to be used for.
Look at how much money is raised in fundraisers and events with cancer awareness, and all sorts of disabilities. Those are communities of people where it effects and they feel obligate to support. You can't support every fundraiser out there, and some people will focus on other items more than others. People will fund the arts, fight against cancer, child diseases, animal rights, environmental issues, and so forth.
But in relationship with that quote, the can might have been picked up - but was it put where it should be? Was it thrown in a landfill with all other unbiodegradable items - or was it recycled? Would you have preferred it to be recycled instead? Then maybe you should have put that extra effort to put it in the proper bin instead of assuming the can would have been put in the proper place by someone else.
At least picking up the can yourself, you get the assurance the can is rightfully recycled, and you psychologically feel better. There's been long term studies done showing that people who do some sort of community service feel better, and even live longer. You can see the study here: APA: Motives for Volunteering Are Associated With Mortality Risk in
Older Adults
Companies will have more incentive to offer different programs as well, especially in the medical field when HMO's aren't hovering over their backs and they can now compete for the private sectors dollar again.
So really, I feel it's more about being assured your money goes rightfully somewhere, versus to a general government program that's an overweight balloon ready to pop.
The same goes for my savings. I want to save my own money and prepare for my own retirement and be assured my money is invested well. I don't need a government to assure me that they'll do it for me.
I feel like it goes against the whole idea of helping the neighbor in the private sector.
I'd instead look at it as using the government as the middle man to transfer those funds to one person to another.
This however:
Fiery_Penguin_of_Doom wrote...
You might ask "What's the difference if I do it or the Government does it?" If the Government does it, then you really didn't do anything. You simply kicked the can down the road for the Government to pick up rather than picking the can up yourself. I can agree with.
I don't feel someones health and well being is anymore important than mine, personally. However, I don't think it's the governments responsibility to tell me how to use my money, and force my money to be spread wherever, and then possibly not even be used for what it's supposed to be used for.
Look at how much money is raised in fundraisers and events with cancer awareness, and all sorts of disabilities. Those are communities of people where it effects and they feel obligate to support. You can't support every fundraiser out there, and some people will focus on other items more than others. People will fund the arts, fight against cancer, child diseases, animal rights, environmental issues, and so forth.
But in relationship with that quote, the can might have been picked up - but was it put where it should be? Was it thrown in a landfill with all other unbiodegradable items - or was it recycled? Would you have preferred it to be recycled instead? Then maybe you should have put that extra effort to put it in the proper bin instead of assuming the can would have been put in the proper place by someone else.
At least picking up the can yourself, you get the assurance the can is rightfully recycled, and you psychologically feel better. There's been long term studies done showing that people who do some sort of community service feel better, and even live longer. You can see the study here: APA: Motives for Volunteering Are Associated With Mortality Risk in
Older Adults
Companies will have more incentive to offer different programs as well, especially in the medical field when HMO's aren't hovering over their backs and they can now compete for the private sectors dollar again.
So really, I feel it's more about being assured your money goes rightfully somewhere, versus to a general government program that's an overweight balloon ready to pop.
The same goes for my savings. I want to save my own money and prepare for my own retirement and be assured my money is invested well. I don't need a government to assure me that they'll do it for me.
0
Y'all seem to be forgetting that insurance is still available for those that want it. I don't see why anybody should be unhappy with this method of health care. If you are worried about yourself, then you should get insurance. if you are worried about other people, donate to charity. The idea here is that people should have the freedom and responsibility to take care of themselves instead of relying on the government.
0
Ziggy wrote...
I don't like the argument of someone needing aid, unable to afford it, thus is stealing from others by using the government and I feel that it is extreme. I've heard Neal Boortz say stuff like this and it's always made me just want to turn the radio off. "It's the persons fault for not having prepared x, y, and z. It's the person's fault for not having the funds"I feel like it goes against the whole idea of helping the neighbor in the private sector.
Yes, Neal is Quite abrasive and even I turn him off occasionally. He doesn't really represent the Libertarian or libertarian point of view since he has openly supported Republican Candidates in the 2008 and 2010 elections. Which resulted in him being booted from the party in 2010. Neal is closer to a Republican than a Libertarian or even libertarian despite his rhetoric.
Here is an example for you and others.
Spoiler:
The concept is not really extreme at all. It is merely the application of the logic we use everyday.
I'd instead look at it as using the government as the middle man to transfer those funds to one person to another.
And like all middlemen, they drive up the cost of everything they squeeze themselves into.
0
Brittany
FAKKU Production Mngr
Lelouch24 wrote...
Y'all seem to be forgetting that insurance is still available for those that want it. I don't see why anybody should be unhappy with this method of health care. If you are worried about yourself, then you should get insurance. if you are worried about other people, donate to charity. The idea here is that people should have the freedom and responsibility to take care of themselves instead of relying on the government. Absolutely, and insurance costs would be much more affordable as well. I had quoted Ron Paul in the first post I made saying insurance was meant to be used as preventing the foreseen, that it's ridiculous that people can't afford normal expected routine check ups due to what the government has done to the healthcare system in the United States.
Pay with cash of $25-$35 dollar doctor routine check ups, only a little higher than most copays now - and let insurance companies protect you against the foreseen.
The reason the private sector has been such a big topic on 'what if's' is that a lot of times democrats or liberals who depend on the government to spoon feed them scream that people who are poor or can't afford health care are left to die, which is just a scare tactic. The democratic party tried a scare tactic in New York just recently that Republicans wanted to send them to the wolves with taking away Medicare - and guess what? It didn't work.
1
To add to the current conversation, I would like to share one of my favorite Ron Paul quotes.
“The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion that we as individuals are responsible for our own lives and decisions. We do not have the right to rob our neighbors to make up for our mistakes, neither does our neighbor have any right to tell us how to live, so long as we aren’t infringing on their rights. Freedom to make bad decisions is inherent in the freedom to make good ones. If we are only free to make good decisions, we are not really free.”
“The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion that we as individuals are responsible for our own lives and decisions. We do not have the right to rob our neighbors to make up for our mistakes, neither does our neighbor have any right to tell us how to live, so long as we aren’t infringing on their rights. Freedom to make bad decisions is inherent in the freedom to make good ones. If we are only free to make good decisions, we are not really free.”
0
Jash2o2 wrote...
To add to the current conversation, I would like to share one of my favorite Ron Paul quotes.“The most basic principle to being a free American is the notion that we as individuals are responsible for our own lives and decisions. We do not have the right to rob our neighbors to make up for our mistakes, neither does our neighbor have any right to tell us how to live, so long as we aren’t infringing on their rights. Freedom to make bad decisions is inherent in the freedom to make good ones. If we are only free to make good decisions, we are not really free.”
I haven't heard that quote yet; I really like it.
0
i just cannot imagine Barack Obama not winning his re-election. As much as America blames him for not standing up to his promises and the change he repeatedly shoved up everyone's arse, he is a good president. At least not a bad one.
0
Honestly, I think they're all horrible. Didn't someone say: "we're here to make Obama a one term president"?
"Oh, America? Nah they're fine. Our goal's more important."
It's like plugging your ears and humming real loudly while someone's trying to tell you something; we might as well head back in time where it's cool to play in sewage and condemn scientists cause your beliefs are right.
Sorry if I'm starting to rant off topic...sometimes I feel like I'd rather be anything except human.
"Oh, America? Nah they're fine. Our goal's more important."
It's like plugging your ears and humming real loudly while someone's trying to tell you something; we might as well head back in time where it's cool to play in sewage and condemn scientists cause your beliefs are right.
Sorry if I'm starting to rant off topic...sometimes I feel like I'd rather be anything except human.
0
State of the Union Address from hopefully our future President
I'd like to vote for a Republican but none of the presidential hopefuls of theirs can't put their money where their mouths are. But hopefully, Mitt Romney gets the Republican nod. If Obama must have a very serious opposition, it'll have to be with Romney. RuPaul... er, Ron Paul is like Pope Benedict XVI - too old to be of any major change.
And seriously, WTF is this "restore America" slogan? Has America changed that drastically in the Obama term to require a "restoration"? USA in 2008 is still the USA in 2011, it's the poor economy and unemployment that's still prevalent. And for all the hypocrites out there parading this pisspoor slogan, where are you during Bush's last four years?
You fail to realize that Obama is the same as Bush
They both broke their promises
They both support the illegal wars
They both support nation building
They both support dictators through foreign aid
They both support the bailouts
They both support the patriot act
They both support torture
They both raised the debt ceiling
They both borrow against the future to spend it all today
They both failed to uphold their oath
I could go on and on
And Restore America yes, because America has been going down the wrong path for a hundred years
I don't want Bush in office for 16 years in a row though, 12 is bad enough
Clinton was an asshole too. The sanctions on Iraq during his presidency resulted in the deaths of over half a million civilians. And they they fined charity organizations that tried to bring the Iraqis medicine.
jmason wrote...
Here's the thing - I don't like some of Obama's policies, especially the big spending. But he, at least, is doing something, and he's definitely doing. People and Republicans may dislike some (or all) of his initiatives and bills, but he's going forward, not backwards. I can't hate on people like him. So I'd like Obama to get another term, just to see where his goals will take America.I'd like to vote for a Republican but none of the presidential hopefuls of theirs can't put their money where their mouths are. But hopefully, Mitt Romney gets the Republican nod. If Obama must have a very serious opposition, it'll have to be with Romney. RuPaul... er, Ron Paul is like Pope Benedict XVI - too old to be of any major change.
And seriously, WTF is this "restore America" slogan? Has America changed that drastically in the Obama term to require a "restoration"? USA in 2008 is still the USA in 2011, it's the poor economy and unemployment that's still prevalent. And for all the hypocrites out there parading this pisspoor slogan, where are you during Bush's last four years?
You fail to realize that Obama is the same as Bush
They both broke their promises
They both support the illegal wars
They both support nation building
They both support dictators through foreign aid
They both support the bailouts
They both support the patriot act
They both support torture
They both raised the debt ceiling
They both borrow against the future to spend it all today
They both failed to uphold their oath
I could go on and on
And Restore America yes, because America has been going down the wrong path for a hundred years
SmittenKitten wrote...
Obama, simply because if we can elect Bush Jr. for two terms, we can give Obama another term to finish what he promised. I just want to give him the benefit of the doubt and at least he can't run for office again and someone can get shit done without worrying about reelected. I don't want Bush in office for 16 years in a row though, 12 is bad enough
Clinton was an asshole too. The sanctions on Iraq during his presidency resulted in the deaths of over half a million civilians. And they they fined charity organizations that tried to bring the Iraqis medicine.
0
Cruz
Dope Stone Lion
We don't need a perfect politician, or a perfect system. We need perfect participants.
1
@Fpod
While I know Paul's view are more nuanced, in general, he favors getting rid of most of the government.
While big government programs can be inefficient, there are also some things that only the national government can do because of its size, and I believe some of these are valuable.
For example, take healthcare. In an unregulated free market, a health insurance provider has strong incentive to try to figure out who will get sick the most and distribute costs accordingly. Since we are already fairly good at predicting who will get sick(and we will only get better as time goes on), health insurers have incentive to charge extremely high rates or deny coverage to(since it may not be profitable at an affordable price) to those who are likely to have chronic health problems. This rather defeats the purpose of insurance, which is to spread the risk among everyone so that the unlucky will be able to deal with their problems. Regulation can make this actually happen. And as for the individual mandate, unless we are willing to let people who show up in the ER with no insurance die(like the audience at the Tea Party Express debate) that cost will just be a drain on all the people who do buy insurance through government cost or higher healthcare costs(and for charity, who will donate money for the purpose of saving people who didn't want to pay for their own insurance like everyone else? It's a hard sell). Healthcare regulation is a form of resource redistribution: it redistributes some of the benefits of good health across everyone in the system, but I think it is a desirable one. This could also be regulated at the state level, but a national regulatory system creates more consistency, especially given that healthcare isn't really an intrastate affair practice.
The federal government can also use its size as leverage in negotiations concerning health care prices, which Ron Paul supports according to wikipedia. I'm not sure why he doesn't see this as an abuse of government power though.
I don't have time to get into the FRB issue right now, so we can save that for another post.
I think a lot of Ron Paul's ideas come down to the moral hazard. For example the bailouts and stimulus: it's not really in dispute among mainstream economists that these measure prevented things from being worse than they are now. The question is whether the practices of the institutions that provided these measures, both before and during the recession, that caused people to engage in practices that cause things like recessions and financial collapses. It's similar with charities and the argument that people don't donate or do things themselves because "they know the government will do it for them."
It's hard to answer this question because we don't really have a good way to gauge what would happen if we had a seismic shift in policy(you can look at the history of laissez-faire government, which is pretty ugly during the industrial revolution, but it IS a different time now), but I personally believe that the benefits to having the FRB outweigh the costs, the bailouts were worth it, and that charities wouldn't be able to cover as much as we would need them in the absence of government(as Paul implied when asked the ER question in the Tea Party Express debate.)
While I know Paul's view are more nuanced, in general, he favors getting rid of most of the government.
While big government programs can be inefficient, there are also some things that only the national government can do because of its size, and I believe some of these are valuable.
For example, take healthcare. In an unregulated free market, a health insurance provider has strong incentive to try to figure out who will get sick the most and distribute costs accordingly. Since we are already fairly good at predicting who will get sick(and we will only get better as time goes on), health insurers have incentive to charge extremely high rates or deny coverage to(since it may not be profitable at an affordable price) to those who are likely to have chronic health problems. This rather defeats the purpose of insurance, which is to spread the risk among everyone so that the unlucky will be able to deal with their problems. Regulation can make this actually happen. And as for the individual mandate, unless we are willing to let people who show up in the ER with no insurance die(like the audience at the Tea Party Express debate) that cost will just be a drain on all the people who do buy insurance through government cost or higher healthcare costs(and for charity, who will donate money for the purpose of saving people who didn't want to pay for their own insurance like everyone else? It's a hard sell). Healthcare regulation is a form of resource redistribution: it redistributes some of the benefits of good health across everyone in the system, but I think it is a desirable one. This could also be regulated at the state level, but a national regulatory system creates more consistency, especially given that healthcare isn't really an intrastate affair practice.
The federal government can also use its size as leverage in negotiations concerning health care prices, which Ron Paul supports according to wikipedia. I'm not sure why he doesn't see this as an abuse of government power though.
I don't have time to get into the FRB issue right now, so we can save that for another post.
I think a lot of Ron Paul's ideas come down to the moral hazard. For example the bailouts and stimulus: it's not really in dispute among mainstream economists that these measure prevented things from being worse than they are now. The question is whether the practices of the institutions that provided these measures, both before and during the recession, that caused people to engage in practices that cause things like recessions and financial collapses. It's similar with charities and the argument that people don't donate or do things themselves because "they know the government will do it for them."
It's hard to answer this question because we don't really have a good way to gauge what would happen if we had a seismic shift in policy(you can look at the history of laissez-faire government, which is pretty ugly during the industrial revolution, but it IS a different time now), but I personally believe that the benefits to having the FRB outweigh the costs, the bailouts were worth it, and that charities wouldn't be able to cover as much as we would need them in the absence of government(as Paul implied when asked the ER question in the Tea Party Express debate.)
0
WhiteLion wrote...
@FpodFor example, take healthcare. In an unregulated free market, a health insurance provider has strong incentive to try to figure out who will get sick the most and distribute costs accordingly. Since we are already fairly good at predicting who will get sick(and we will only get better as time goes on), health insurers have incentive to charge extremely high rates or deny coverage to(since it may not be profitable at an affordable price) to those who are likely to have chronic health problems. This rather defeats the purpose of insurance, which is to spread the risk among everyone so that the unlucky will be able to deal with their problems. Regulation can make this actually happen. And as for the individual mandate, unless we are willing to let people who show up in the ER with no insurance die(like the audience at the Tea Party Express debate) that cost will just be a drain on all the people who do buy insurance through government cost or higher healthcare costs(and for charity, who will donate money for the purpose of saving people who didn't want to pay for their own insurance like everyone else? It's a hard sell). Healthcare regulation is a form of resource redistribution: it redistributes some of the benefits of good health across everyone in the system, but I think it is a desirable one. This could also be regulated at the state level, but a national regulatory system creates more consistency, especially given that healthcare isn't really an intrastate affair practice.As SamRavster mentioned earlier (in another thread) about "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" in regards to the NHS denying life saving cancer drugs to patients. I fear this will become the modus opperadi which would essentially doom people to a death sentence. In no way does removing my control over my own healthcare and placing it in the hands of appointed bureaucrats help me as a patient. I would not be allowed to negotiate for specific treatments and would be forced to accept whatever treatments the doctor orders.
The federal government can also use its size as leverage in negotiations concerning health care prices, which Ron Paul supports according to wikipedia. I'm not sure why he doesn't see this as an abuse of government power though.
United States Constitution
Article 1 Section 8. Clause 3 (a.k.a "Commerce Clause")
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
0
WhiteLion wrote...
I think a lot of Ron Paul's ideas come down to the moral hazard. For example the bailouts and stimulus: it's not really in dispute among mainstream economists that these measure prevented things from being worse than they are now. The question is whether the practices of the institutions that provided these measures, both before and during the recession, that caused people to engage in practices that cause things like recessions and financial collapses. It's similar with charities and the argument that people don't donate or do things themselves because "they know the government will do it for them."While most economists would probably support your statement, many (monetarists and the Austrian School immediately come to mind) also claim that the associated increase in deficit and taxes will eventually catch up and make the future economic conditions worse. It's the same as when you have a massive headache and you take 800mg ibuprofen and 1g acetaminophen and when it wears off, your headache is back and worse. Likewise, the problem with the economy began with the housing bubble collapse and the failure of the banks, which has caused economic uncertainty in America. The problem is still in the fact that people refuse to spend when they can save. Of course one fix is to keep pouring trillion-dollar bottles of aspirin into the economy, but few would argue that that is indefinitely feasible.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
WhiteLion wrote...
@FpodFor example, take healthcare. In an unregulated free market, a health insurance provider has strong incentive to try to figure out who will get sick the most and distribute costs accordingly. Since we are already fairly good at predicting who will get sick(and we will only get better as time goes on), health insurers have incentive to charge extremely high rates or deny coverage to(since it may not be profitable at an affordable price) to those who are likely to have chronic health problems. This rather defeats the purpose of insurance, which is to spread the risk among everyone so that the unlucky will be able to deal with their problems. Regulation can make this actually happen. And as for the individual mandate, unless we are willing to let people who show up in the ER with no insurance die(like the audience at the Tea Party Express debate) that cost will just be a drain on all the people who do buy insurance through government cost or higher healthcare costs(and for charity, who will donate money for the purpose of saving people who didn't want to pay for their own insurance like everyone else? It's a hard sell). Healthcare regulation is a form of resource redistribution: it redistributes some of the benefits of good health across everyone in the system, but I think it is a desirable one. This could also be regulated at the state level, but a national regulatory system creates more consistency, especially given that healthcare isn't really an intrastate affair practice.As SamRavster mentioned earlier (in another thread) about "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" in regards to the NHS denying life saving cancer drugs to patients. I fear this will become the modus opperadi which would essentially doom people to a death sentence. In no way does removing my control over my own healthcare and placing it in the hands of appointed bureaucrats help me as a patient. I would not be allowed to negotiate for specific treatments and would be forced to accept whatever treatments the doctor orders.
The federal government can also use its size as leverage in negotiations concerning health care prices, which Ron Paul supports according to wikipedia. I'm not sure why he doesn't see this as an abuse of government power though.
United States Constitution
Article 1 Section 8. Clause 3 (a.k.a "Commerce Clause")
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
1. Healthcare regulation does not necessarily equal death panels. It could simply mean something like preventing health insurance providers from discriminating based on genetic conditions. It might still be "needs of the many" in your eyes, as it is actually taking the cost of the great risk of a few people and spreading it out over everyone. But in a completely unregulated system, people would be getting denied healthcare by random chance. If you kid is born with some genetic defect, too bad, you are paying through the roof or getting nothing. Maybe that's a good system to some people, but you know, it could be my family someday that would be getting shafted, and I can empathize with people who might be in that position. I think the whole point of insurance is to spread out the risk among as many people as possible so that it doesn't become unbearable for any individual. Insurance is socialism that people choose to buy into.
Healthcare regulation doesn't necessarily mean government run healthcare. It means the government has to answer two questions:
-What is a fair way to offer/distribute healthcare?
-What happens to people who don't buy health insurance when they need treatment and potentially become a drain on the system(because even if you bill them, they simply can't pay)?
2. I'm not ignorant, I know what the commerce clause states. However, it is one of the most interpreted clauses in the constitution. Simply stating is has almost no meaning. Why does the government using its power to drive down drug prices qualify as a legitimate regulation of interstate commerce while Paul criticizes other schemes to disrupt the markets?