2012 Vote

Discussion in 'Serious Chat' started by Erica, Sep 24, 2011.

  1. Derek

    Derek LPAssociation.com Administrator LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2002
    Messages:
    41,873
    Likes Received:
    2,332



    While I admire your strong passion for Ron Paul, and understand why you support him (being an anarchist), do you not understand how shit brick insane some of his policies are? He's literally looking to completely overhaul our country, and take it back about 100-200 years. Even if he were to get elected, I couldn't imagine ANY person in the house/senate passing some of his ideas. After all, Obama was pretty much cock-blocked every step of the way by the Republicans. Here's a few examples of Ron Paul craziniess:

    Source: http://newsflavor.com/opinions/five-reasons-why-ron-paul-is-insane/

    Do you legitimately think these ideas are GOOD ideas?
     
  2. Tim

    Tim My perversion power is accumulating LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    7,032
    Likes Received:
    34



    I know I've criticized some of Ron Paul's fiscal views, but I actually think a ticket with Paul and Kucinich or Paul and Nader would be pretty rad. In either scenario, each candidate would help balance out some of the more extreme views of the other.
     
  3. travz21

    travz21 Muscle Museum LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,000
    Likes Received:
    1



    Before I even start up this debate again, I want to apologize for some of the ways I've conducted myself previously. I don't think I'm better than anyone else who disagrees with me. I don't try to talk down to people or make fun of their political beliefs, but I'm not the best debater, so when things get heated I tend to let that side of me show through instead of continuing to post strong rebuttals. I like everyone here and don't enjoy when things get out of hand like that. I'll do my best to keep this professional, and I hope everyone else will try too.

    First, we need to understand that this article is misinterpreting a couple of these issues. Second, we need to ask ourselves why any of these would actually be insane.

    The Gold Standard

    This does not mean that we're trading gold instead of paper money literally. It just means that our paper money is backed by an equal amount of gold. The US actually had the gold standard until 1971, when President Nixon decided to end it because we didn't have enough money for the Vietnam War. So what happened is that the Federal Reserve simply printed more money than we had in gold. Since we weren't and aren't backed by gold and there were no more restrictions, it was like a giant credit card where we could just keep on printing more money to fund whatever we wanted. As soon as the government had that power, why would it ever willingly relinquish it? It allows them to do whatever they want without regard to our financial well-being. This leads to inflation, which reduces the value of our dollar. The more paper money printed compared to our actual value (gold), the less our paper money is actually worth.

    What the gold standard does is it prevents runaway spending that we can't afford. It creates a government that is responsible and accountable for its spending. The funding of wars or bailing out of corporations wouldn't be possible unless we had the money to do it.

    Zimbabwe was the latest victim of hyperinflation due to their military spending. Germany in 1921, Hungary in 1945, even the Roman Empire fell because of inflation.

    Now we have to ask ourselves, is the gold standard actually insane, or is it better than what we have now?


    Opposed to the UN

    I like that this author actually knows that the government manipulates us with fear to further its agenda, but I don't know how he came to any of the conclusions he presented in this paragraph. I guess I'll just address some things.

    "The world hates us enough as it is, and now he wants to further isolate our nation." Further isolate? We haven't been isolating ourselves, so "further" would imply that we have been isolating. What Ron Paul doesn't want to do is isolate ourselves. He's a strong proponent of trading with nations and talking with them, but he doesn't want to keep occupying their soil with soldiers or other political forces.

    I actually can't make it through the rest of the fallacies from this author, so I'll just supply you with an article Ron wrote about this exact subject. It might need some discussion later but I'll move on for now: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul82.html


    Theocracy

    First, Ron doesn't want the government involved in schooling at all. This would apply to religious content, as well as everything else. What this doesn't mean is that there wouldn't be any enforcement. There would still be rules.

    Should the government be telling us what we can and can't do while being educated? Shouldn't that be left to the parents who are sending their children to these schools? Shouldn't that then be left to the schools to decide what would be a good environment for those kids based on what those parents decide?

    Should the government control what we are learning in school? Should the schools be hiring the smartest and best teachers, or should they be hiring someone who can simply fill the job of what the government wants our kids to be taught? When a school is forced to teach a certain way, it stifles learning. And the counterargument would be that schools could then teach them about any kinds of wacky things. Yes, they could. But if we were had a education system where it weren't paid for by tax dollars and it was paid for by admissions, the schools would be forced to listen to the parents. And that's what schooling is; a way for the parent to help their child grow up and learn if homeschooling isn't an option. It shouldn't be left in the hands of the government. The schools should represent what our parents want for their child.


    No More Income Tax

    Sigh. There's so many ludicrous statements in here. I was hoping this would be easier to run through than what it's going to be.

    "Sounds great right? Well, so does free ice cream and new cars for everyone, but that doesn’t mean they’re realistic ideas." We didn't have an income tax until 1913, so it actually is based in reality.

    "The US. government needs money, and if you abolish the income tax, they’re going to take it by other means." They're going to take it, indeed. That's what the government does. It takes our money against our will. It's odd that the author uses those words without realizing it or caring how the government treats our income. He makes it sound like the government is the mafia. If we don't pay, they're going to make us pay one way or the other.

    "only instead of taking fair amounts from people based on how much they make, the government is going to increase the sales tax." What exactly is a fair amount to take from someone? And letting the government decide what a fair amount is, when they are the ones who want our money, seems a little crazy. Right? And why is taxing someone based on their income better than taxing someone based on what they spend? It's not. Having an income tax means the government owns your income, and they get to choose the amount they let you keep. That money is gone before it even gets in your pocket. A sales tax would let you keep what you earn and do whatever you want with it. You can invest it, spend it, or just save it for a later time when you have enough money to make a better purchase. The only time you would be taxed is when you buy something. This gives you infinitely more freedom with your money than an income tax.

    "In case you weren’t following, this means Ron Paul’s plans will benefit the rich." I was following, but your conclusion doesn't follow the evidence. It would actually benefit everyone, since everyone would have more freedom with their earnings. If you think a rich person should be paying more taxes than a poor person, well, they would be, because they're going to be spending more. And if by the off chance they don't spend more, why should they have to pay more taxes just because they're making more money? Shouldn't rich people also have the freedom to invest and save their money without being forced to pay an income tax?

    "He just wants to greaten the divide between the poor and the rich, which is already overwhelming." I wish the author would have gave more reasons for this, because this is a pretty bad fallacy that was probably overlooked by a lot of readers. I hope that's evident from the info I've just given.

    "By the way, he also wants to eliminate the departments of education, energy, homeland security, and emergency management. We’re struggling to bring order to our chaotic nation as it is, don’t hinder our efforts by destroying the government." The government doesn't further our advancement in any areas of life. People do. Scientists and specialists do. We don't need the government overseeing these areas for us to advance in them. In fact, these areas of concern from the author would be much more productive without the government regulating the hell out of them and holding them back. And we're actually trying to bring more order to an already overbearing nation. There is nothing chaotic about it.

    "Ron Paul is either an unrealistic crazy idealist or another corrupted politician." That's exactly what the corrupted politicians and government wants you to think.

    And I'm sorry for not having the source, but I know I heard that, without an income tax, we'd have the same budget as like 30 or 40 years ago. So we'd just have to scale back on government a bit and other forms of tax wouldn't even increase. I'll go searching for that info now.


    Edit: There's nothing like writing a 1,400 word report when you don't have to lol.

    Edit: Don't know if it counts as a source for people who aren't convinced yet (ronpaul.com lol), but here's a good article on the income tax: http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-15/end-the-income-tax-abolish-the-irs/
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2011
  4. Derek

    Derek LPAssociation.com Administrator LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2002
    Messages:
    41,873
    Likes Received:
    2,332



    The argument concerning that the Income Tax didn't start until 1913 is historically inaccurate. See here under "History > United States": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax

    Sure Wikipedia isn't always the best source, but this is an extremely well researched article. Furthermore, as that article will show, we are hardly the first country to attempt to do this. Income tax has been around for almost 200 years. Also, they taxed incomes of less than 20,000 in today's money. It wasn't just a rich people tax then. Please give me evidence of this country being better off economically before the first ever income tax was established, and I will give credit to Ron's proposal.
     
  5. Tim

    Tim My perversion power is accumulating LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    7,032
    Likes Received:
    34



    Does this mean I can't be a smartass anymore? :p

    Seriously though, from what I gather I think we can agree on what some of the underlying problems are in this country, but we only seem to differ when it comes to the solutions.

    To be fair, Ron Paul isn't suggesting that we just get rid of the income tax and call it a day. He also wants to eliminate entitlement programs and cut defense spending, which are our two biggest expenses. If you take those expenditures out of the equation, we wouldn't need an income tax. Now whether or not you think cutting either is a good idea is a different question entirely. Personally, I think entitlement programs have merit, but they need to be managed more efficiently. I think Paul hits the nail on the head with regards to defense spending, though.
     
  6. travz21

    travz21 Muscle Museum LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,000
    Likes Received:
    1



    That's when it became permanent. And the percentages are very noteworthy back then compared to now. It was less than 4%.

    And if you want me to get really simplistic, taxes never help the economy. All taxes do is drain the economy of money that would otherwise be used by the citizens who earned it. Having the least amount of taxes while still being able to have the government do what the people want it to do will be the best for the economy. If people want government to keep spending more than we have and eventually end up like a hyperinflation nation, then we definitely need to keep taxing as much as possible to fund this. But if we want a healthy economy, we need to tax the bear minimum so the economy has more money to work with. What that minimum will be will depend on the people.
     
  7. SuperDude526

    SuperDude526 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,137
    Likes Received:
    9



    Actually we have been isolating ourselves internationally, in the same way that Israel's national security policies have for them as of late (not to say that I think that's fair, at least in Israel's case, but there you go).
     
  8. travz21

    travz21 Muscle Museum LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,000
    Likes Received:
    1


  9. Astat

    Astat LPA Super Member LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,130
    Likes Received:
    318



    This election is shaping up to be one that I honestly don't even want to vote in. The only GOP candidate that doesn't appear to be completely insane (or at least just plain stupid) is Mitt Romney, and I really can't stand him either. Obama's been incredibly hit-or-miss up to this point, part of me thinks it'd be best to just vote for him again and try to see things through for a full 8-year term, but then again...I dunno. Essentially, I don't see any of the candidates being able to get this country on the right track anytime soon. I'll still vote in 2012, but I'll probably just skip over the presidential candidates this time around.
     
  10. Derek

    Derek LPAssociation.com Administrator LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2002
    Messages:
    41,873
    Likes Received:
    2,332



    I'm voting for Obama. I'm not 100% happy with his performance as president, and I really wish he would've shown the backbone that he's showing now a LOT earlier but I'll be damned if I will sit 4 years under Romney, Herman Cain or miss batshit crazy Bachmann. No thank you.
     
  11. Dean

    Dean LPA Super Member LPA Addict

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    18,858
    Likes Received:
    0



    Herman Cain sounds like the name of some old guy from Mad Men
     
  12. Benjamin

    Benjamin LPA team LPA Super VIP

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    6,398
    Likes Received:
    3



    I'll vote Obama for the same reason as Derek, but I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if Romney got elected. Part of me thinks he's a liberal deep down.
     
  13. Vriska

    Vriska Wiki Staff LPA VIP

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,777
    Likes Received:
    0



    As it stands in October 2011, I will most likely, grudgingly, and with great annoyance, be voting for Obama again.

    PS: The "prayer in schools" debate is not about what the students want to do during lunch or quietly before a test. It's specifically about teacher-led prayer and faculty promoting one religion over the others. Anyone who says otherwise is misleading you into think them dirty liberals don't want no religion for anyone. They actually don't want teachers ramming religion down people's throats. There's a difference between being religious prohibitive, religious neutral, and religious promotive. There's three stances, not two. The government needs to be neutral.

    And no, it shouldn't be up to the schools to decide that. It's their job to uphold the first amendment, not pander to pious assholes because parents want to brainwash everybody else's kids.
     
  14. jedibeaner

    jedibeaner Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    376
    Likes Received:
    0



    Voting for Obama again.
     
  15. ernieball003

    ernieball003 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,252
    Likes Received:
    0



    If I actually register I'll just go with some third party guy that has no chance.
     
  16. Derek

    Derek LPAssociation.com Administrator LPA Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2002
    Messages:
    41,873
    Likes Received:
    2,332



    Put Derek Oswald as a write in. I'll win via a landslide, be discovered to be only 25, and then I'll have a political scandal. :awesome:
     
  17. ernieball003

    ernieball003 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,252
    Likes Received:
    0



    It's a plan.
     
  18. Benjamin

    Benjamin LPA team LPA Super VIP

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2010
    Messages:
    6,398
    Likes Received:
    3



    And the hits on LPA will skyrocket. Ca-ching! :awesome:
     
  19. sotrix

    sotrix @lplive

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    281
    Likes Received:
    0



    Yes, the government should be telling us what we can and can't do while being educated. No, it should not be up to the parents. No, schools cannot be left to decide what would be a good environment. Yes, the government should control what we are learning in school.

    Ugh I just want to go off on everything in that quote. With a flame thrower.
     
  20. travz21

    travz21 Muscle Museum LPA Super Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    4,000
    Likes Received:
    1



    The truth hurts.
     

Share This Page