?

Log in

 
 
20 September 2007 @ 02:30 pm
BURN YOUR MONEY!!  
For the first time in 31 years the Canadian dollar is worth the same as the US dollar. Time go to back to an assets systems. RON PAUL 2008!!!
 
 
 
mrmonadahl on September 23rd, 2007 02:24 pm (UTC)
I just heard Ron Paul breakdown his analysis of our foreign policy towards Iran and I agree entirely.

I probably disagree with him on 80% of other issues but at least he's sharp and has intellectual integrity.
pine_the_onlypine_the_only on September 23rd, 2007 10:36 pm (UTC)
He's a sharp guy. A doctor, economist, politician, and war veteran. He's put his hat into a lot of things. I disagree with some of his stuff but not much. Out of all the debates, he's the only politician whose plans make sense and he isn't sitting up there any lying to anyone and has the voting record to back it up. Other than Mike Gravel, he's the only one that supports immediate withdraw of troops and removed the policy of any preemptive nuclear strikes on countries. He's pro everyone having equal rights whether gay, women, black, whatever. He just makes sense. I'm curious to hear what you don't agree with. I assume health care and student loans from the government might be some.
mrmonadahl on September 24th, 2007 12:06 am (UTC)
My least favorite candidate, based on his reek of slimey, say-anything-to-get-elected politicianicity, is Mitt Romney. Fucking gross.

I'm not an expert on Ron Paul but I perceive him to be the true economic libertarian of the bunch. You know me, serious sympathies for redistributrive tax policies and entitlement programs. I really admire his consistency and wholeness of thought, though. Perhaps 80% was an overstatement.
I think his policy on federal student loans is a little nutty.

pine_the_onlypine_the_only on September 24th, 2007 01:06 pm (UTC)
I have to say Guliani is the largest slimeball of the bunch. And Hillary Clinton has to just be one of the dumbest people ever. I refused to learn anything else about her once she began voting for legislation on videogames. She needs to get out there and read a few studies. If she is so clueless on that small issue, she can't be trusted for much else.

I guess I just don't understand redistribution of wealth. You work hard for your money. Why should the government or anyone else for that matter have any say as to where your money goes? Besides, if the govt takes it, you have no idea where it ends up. If you really want to be altruistic, then wouldn't it be better for you to decide where your money went like to private donors that you can be sure of spend the money where you want it to go. The US govt as proven time and again that it doesn't know how to channel money correctly. If universal health care is provided by the government then they get to choose the doctors you see and eventually create monopolistic practices shutting down other offices. My main point is, no one should have the right to say your money should be taken from you and redistributed.

As far as college loans go, I was the recipient of government loans through school and I was a little taken back by this issue until I watched a sit down session with Ron Paul about student loans. The government doesn't produce a product so in order to give something, it has to be taken from someone else. Why should people who can't go to college or don't want to go to college be forced to pay for you to go to college through taxes which is the way it works now. Not enough interest is collected off of loans to maintain the program by itself. There are also lots of private donors out there now, banks & credit unions, and universities that give student loans. It's not like there aren't other means to get money for college. Again, I just think it goes back to no one has the right to take your money from you and put it somewhere else.

I talked to a few people with your stance on this stuff over the weekend. Their main argument, it seemed, was if it was left up to the people, there would be less altruism. I think that remains debatable but even if there was less, it would certainly be a lot more effective for the cause. Besides, there is no moral obligation by anyone to HAVE to take care of other people. I know this sounds soulless, but it's true. No on should force that upon you.

I'm open to anything anyone has to say on these issues. But everything all the other candidates are saying has been said and tried before and it hasn't worked. I'm up for finally letting the people have the larger part that was always intended in the US. It's not anarchy, as a lot of neo-cons like to suggest, but it could work.
mrmonadahl on September 24th, 2007 01:32 pm (UTC)
The government doesn't produce a product so in order to give something, it has to be taken from someone else.
That's one of my biggest problems with people whose views I share - government money is not magic. It has to come from somewhere, most simply the collection of taxes from the citizens. People always talk about these catastrophic healthcare cases (i.e. insuranceless man loses three fingers in an accident, hospital makes him choose which finger to have reattached) and they say "That's terrible. It should never happen." Okay, true, but what's the solution? The money has to come from somewhere. "Everything should be free for everyone" is a naive, ridiculous sentiment.

I think a lot the debate, at least between intelligent people, comes from fundamental definitions of government and property. I'm not convinced that property is a fundamental right, at least not in the manner in which it exists today. It's one thing to say "I have this in my possession, therefore it is mine" (which I would distinguish as "personal property") but I don't believe that philosophically holds up when applied to large scale capital. I suppose that's part of the Rousseau break with Locke.
We all are privileged to live, work, and be born in a prosperous, resource-laden country. I'm not uncomfortable with a portion of the fruits from that prosperity being taken back into the hands of the whole.

Reagan is credited with saying that the role of government is to protect its citizens from each other. I completely disagree. I think the role of government is to pool resources and provide organization to do for its citizens what they can not effectively do for themselves (like build and maintain roads). I appreciate that this introduces inefficiencies, bureaucracy, etc., but unfettered capitalism has its drawbacks as well (inflated income inequalities, the hiring of death squads).

The bottom line is, we have different views but I respect your position. I'd rather talk to a sharp person who disagrees with me than an idiot who agrees any day.