GostHacked Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Individuals can choose whether or not they want to go into debt. As far as the collective debt, that's a problem of politics. It's also a problem of how government is run based on the collective debt. And that debt is a problem for everyone, not just government. If the government has no money to do things, what does that mean for you the individual? What does that mean for the country on the whole? Why should they be treated different? The results are the same on both levels, because the practices are essentially the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 It's also a problem of how government is run based on the collective debt. Yes, it's politics. Why should they be treated different? The results are the same on both levels, because the practices are essentially the same. You're not pointing out anything new here. Nobody is standing up and saying that this situation makes sense, so whom are you arguing against ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 You're not pointing out anything new here. Nobody is standing up and saying that this situation makes sense, so whom are you arguing against ? We got on this tangent because of how different Ron Paul's ideas are about fixing the economy. Vote any of the others in and you will see a continuation of the current economic policies which will lead to a collapse of the USA economy. You can't keep borrowing and expect it to be good in the long run. Either way, it will hurt for a bit. But have it hurt now, and devise a better policy, or it will hurt much much more when the current system fails. The latter will mean many more will hurt for a lot longer. People are calling Ron Paul a kook for what he is proposing, but really the kooks are the ones who want to continue down this same path of economic collapse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 You can't keep borrowing and expect it to be good in the long run. I don't trust Ron Paul to do anything but slash costs and try to institute a libertarian dream world. Some costs should be cut, others shouldn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 We got on this tangent because of how different Ron Paul's ideas are about fixing the economy. Vote any of the others in and you will see a continuation of the current economic policies which will lead to a collapse of the USA economy. You can't keep borrowing and expect it to be good in the long run. Either way, it will hurt for a bit. But have it hurt now, and devise a better policy, or it will hurt much much more when the current system fails. The latter will mean many more will hurt for a lot longer. People are calling Ron Paul a kook for what he is proposing, but really the kooks are the ones who want to continue down this same path of economic collapse. The problem is that some parts of Ron Paul's line are oversimplistic. The idea that if everyone returns to the gold standard, somehow inflation magically disappears is very naive, and yet his followers literally preach it everywhere they can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 The problem is that some parts of Ron Paul's line are oversimplistic. The idea that if everyone returns to the gold standard, somehow inflation magically disappears is very naive, and yet his followers literally preach it everywhere they can. Is returning to the gold standard synonymous with not borrowing money in reality ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 I don't trust Ron Paul to do anything but slash costs and try to institute a libertarian dream world. Some costs should be cut, others shouldn't. Cuts are going to have to be made. I agree with Paul in that the Pentagon's (aka the military) budget needs to be drastically cut. The USA spends more on defense and R&D for the military than anyone else in the world. The US military budget alone is more than the next 15 countries combined! Makes for about 43% of the world total military budget. Empires are expensive to run. http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm The USA spends more on the military than it does on education. The USA spends more on the military than it does on health care. 1 out of 7 in the USA are on food stamps. That shows where the 'priorities' are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 I don't trust Ron Paul to do anything but slash costs and try to institute a libertarian dream world. Some costs should be cut, others shouldn't. Ron Paul isn't going to do anything but continue to vote for (in many cases) the very budgets he decries. Even if he were to be president, he could not directly change the spending priorities ultimately decided by the US Congress. Ron Paul is the best president...for US citizens who are conspiracy theorists. The rest can't vote for him anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Is returning to the gold standard synonymous with not borrowing money in reality ? Strange how there was effectively a gold standard in the Middle Ages, and both Jewish and Venetian lenders were lending money to private interests and even to governments. Paul's ramblings make sense, as long as you ignore history or rationality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Ron Paul isn't going to do anything but continue to vote for (in many cases) the very budgets he decries. Even if he were to be president, he could not directly change the spending priorities ultimately decided by the US Congress. Ron Paul is the best president...for US citizens who are conspiracy theorists. The rest can't vote for him anyway. Even if Ron Paul somehow managed to become President, the fact is that it gives him no unilateral abilities to do anything he promises. He can't toss out civil rights legislation or abandon fiat currency or any of the other strange things he's promised. Congress has an enormous voice in that, and while I'm sure the Republicans would pay lip service to at least some of Paul's policies, the minute he tried to get rid of, say, earmarks, he'd find himself very very lonely in the Oval Office. The US Constitution was built to withstand even crazy presidents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 (edited) Even if Ron Paul somehow managed to become President, the fact is that it gives him no unilateral abilities to do anything he promises. He can't toss out civil rights legislation or abandon fiat currency or any of the other strange things he's promised. Take note of the bolded part. Remember how Obama was going to change everything? And you think any other president is going to change the system? The system is what needs to be changed. Or prepare for more of the same, more debt, more war, more poverty. Congress has an enormous voice in that, and while I'm sure the Republicans would pay lip service to at least some of Paul's policies, the minute he tried to get rid of, say, earmarks, he'd find himself very very lonely in the Oval Office. Being right sometimes means you might not have many friends. The US Constitution was built to withstand even crazy presidents. The US Constitution has essentially been usurped by articles like the PATRIOT Act. The crazy one who did that was Bush. Along with all the signing statements and executive orders he had put into place during his tenure. Edited June 21, 2011 by GostHacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 ....The US Constitution was built to withstand even crazy presidents. Agreed....and if that doesn't work some people have been known to take matters into their own hands. Rep. Ron Paul has already failed twice at this, and it doesn't look good this time around either. Whatever slim chances he ever had have been been overcome by events and more viable candidates. Well wishers from Canada may as well be Miley Cyrus fans for all it matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Agreed....and if that doesn't work some people have been known to take matters into their own hands. That is how revolutions get started. Rep. Ron Paul has already failed twice at this, and it doesn't look good this time around either. Whatever slim chances he ever had have been been overcome by events and more viable candidates. Well wishers from Canada may as well be Miley Cyrus fans for all it matters. Maybe you should focus on Paul some more and forget about whatever celebrity is in the spot light. You might learn something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Take note of the bolded part. Remember how Obama was going to change everything? And you think any other president is going to change the system? The system is what needs to be changed. Or prepare for more of the same, more debt, more war, more poverty. The system, as you put it, prevents any one individual or group from having unilateral powers. I'm curious as to why you think that's a bad thing. Being right sometimes means you might not have many friends. I'm not going to get into a debate about whether Ron Paul is right or not, but what I'm referring to is not how many friends he might have, but to the fact that a President is only as influential and powerful as Congress allows him to be. The President holds vast executive powers, but Congress holds the keys to the treasury. When I say Paul would be lonely, I mean he would likely be isolated. Sure he could bugger up the legislative agenda, but I can only imagine how dismal and unproductive a presidency his would be. The US Constitution has essentially been usurped by articles like the PATRIOT Act. The crazy one who did that was Bush. Along with all the signing statements and executive orders he had put into place during his tenure. I'm amazed how much mileage some will try to get out of this tired claim. 2003 called and wants it rhetoric back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Agreed....and if that doesn't work some people have been known to take matters into their own hands. Heh heh... Rep. Ron Paul has already failed twice at this, and it doesn't look good this time around either. Whatever slim chances he ever had have been been overcome by events and more viable candidates. Well wishers from Canada may as well be Miley Cyrus fans for all it matters. Well, he's sort of like a bigger version of that guy that keeps running for mayor on the platform that he'll stop fluoridation of water to prevent Soviet mind control. Yes, you've got to give a guy like that kudos for perseverance, but that doesn't make their platform any more sensible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 ...Well, he's sort of like a bigger version of that guy that keeps running for mayor on the platform that he'll stop fluoridation of water to prevent Soviet mind control. Yes, you've got to give a guy like that kudos for perseverance, but that doesn't make their platform any more sensible. Paul is not even remarkable in that regard, having a long way to go before surpassing Harold Stassen's eight attempts for the US presidency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Stassen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Or that guy from Laugh-In ? What was his name, Pauly Shore ? No... PAT PAULSEN. Thanks, Google. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Or that guy from Laugh-In ? What was his name, Pauly Shore ? No... PAT PAULSEN. Thanks, Google. Ron Paulsen ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted June 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 So our leaders don't actually plan for our future? Just until their term is up? That seems very shortsightedness. If it's not acceptable for our own finances, it should not be acceptable on the government level. The government gets us into a debt the taxpayers are on the hook long after these people leave office. How is that fair to the hard working taxpayers in which the government wont exist if they did not exist? Yes it's a horrible situation. But there's no incentive in place to make them look past their terms, except maybe their 'legacy' (but i'd argue they also spend recklessly for their 'legacy'). We need to put in incentives...maybe if their pension was proportional to the economic health of the country? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 I don't trust Ron Paul to do anything but slash costs and try to institute a libertarian dream world. Some costs should be cut, others shouldn't. Which ones shouldn't? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maple_leafs182 Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Just reading some posts, if Ron Paul was to get elected president, that means that a lot of people agree with his ideology. Come mid terms they will elect a new congress that would be more in tune with Ron Paul. I don't know why some of you guys are calling him crazy because he has a different perspective on how a Republic should be ran. but Congress holds the keys to the treasury. Who holds the keys to the Fed? They are responsible for loaning out billions if not trillions to foreign banks. That isn't a small amount of money, shouldn't the congress have a say in that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Just reading some posts, if Ron Paul was to get elected president, Now hear this....Ron Paul will never be elected President of the United States. Your best hope (from Canada??) is that he gets picked up as VP on a winning ticket and the real president drops dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Now hear this....Ron Paul will never be elected President of the United States. Your best hope (from Canada??) is that he gets picked up as VP on a winning ticket and the real president drops dead. Worked for Andrew Johnson, and look what a well-regarded and successful president he was! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Which ones shouldn't? How about social assistance for seniors with no other means ? Just a guess there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 How about social assistance for seniors with no other means ? Just a guess there. What's so special about "seniors", who already gobble up a good out of proportion part of the budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.