I think I may be backing Ron Paul......

[Brad GLuckman 519]

He voted to go into Afghanistan where AQ and Bin laden were at the time and to mercilessly kill the phuck out of em all. Which is a far cry from asking permission from AQ. What he didnt do was vote to go into Iraq saying this........

 

“Mr. Speaker; I rise to urge the Congress to think twice before thrusting this nation into a war without merit – one fraught with danger of escalating into something no American will be pleased with. Thomas Jefferson advised: “Never was so much false arithmetic employed on any subject as that which has been employed to persuade nations that it is in their interests to go to war.”

 

We have for months now heard plenty of false arithmetic and lame excuses on why we must pursue a preemptive war of aggression against an impoverished nation 6000 miles from our shores that doesn’t even possess a navy or air force, with the pretense that it must be done for national security reasons.

 

For some reason such an attack makes me feel much less secure, while our country is made more vulnerable.

 

Congress must consider the fact that those with military experience advise a “go slow” policy, while those without military experience are the ones demanding this war. We cannot ignore the fact that all Iraq’s Arab neighbors are opposed to this attack, and our European allies object as well.

 

And if the military and diplomatic reasons for a policy of restraint make no sense to those who want a war, I advise consider the $100 billion it will cost.”

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which I have to admit, seems a bit prophetic today.....except for the gross underestimation of the price tag. I have to admit, I was wrong about Iraq.

 

 

Like I said, I have no problem with this reasoning for not going to war with Iraq, but the Ron Paul quote I gave above gives me a bad feel for how he views foreign policy. Suggesting that we should take our troops out of the region because Al Qaeda says that is a reason for 9/11 is absolutely ludacris, and I would prefer the leader of our nation discard any demands Osama Bin Laden makes when deciding how to run this country.

 

It just makes me wonder what other decisions Ron Paul will make, where he takes into account what Al Qaeda wants.

[wiffleball 4,797]

Like I said, I have no problem with this reasoning for not going to war with Iraq, but the Ron Paul quote I gave above gives me a bad feel for how he views foreign policy. Suggesting that we should take our troops out of the region because Al Qaeda says that is a reason for 9/11 is absolutely ludacris, and I would prefer the leader of our nation discard any demands Osama Bin Laden makes when deciding how to run this country.

 

It just makes me wonder what other decisions Ron Paul will make, where he takes into account what Al Qaeda wants.

 

 

I think part of it is just his wording. And our mindset.

 

 

Yeah, we think we have the right to say "fock you" to the world. Muslims don't like us occupying some of their holiest sites? "Fock You!". - But that's a pretty dumb argument.

 

The reality is, most of what AQ says is BS and justification. They (Radical Extreme Fundamentalist Muslims) believe in nothing short of an entirely Muslim world. Basically, they want the Taleban to rule the world. If we stayed right in our own borders and pulled out of every Muslim country, they'd still believe this.

 

BUT: He's right that (just like Geoge Bush used to say) we're not doing ourselves any favors running halfway around the world nation-building and forcing 'Democracy' down people's throats. Iraq's taught us that if the people don't want it, it ain't happening. And Eastern Europe taught us that if they DO want it, we're irrelevant. (See: Romania - big comparison to Iraq).

 

It's proven fairly stupid to pick a fight in Iraq, but then the 100 other countries where Islamic Terror is taking root. You flush 'em out of one place and they go to another 99. Meanwhile, we spend our days, our lives and a trillion dollars that could be spent elsewhere playing "whack a mole".

 

I don't like the way RP says it, but I agree in principle with what I think he really believes. He's not acquiescing to AQ, he's just saying it doesn't really serve our interests. But, you're right, if he thinks AQ is going to back off if we leave the M.E., he's farking retarded.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

I think part of it is just his wording. And our mindset.

Yeah, we think we have the right to say "fock you" to the world. Muslims don't like us occupying some of their holiest sites? "Fock You!". - But that's a pretty dumb argument.

 

The reality is, most of what AQ says is BS and justification. They (Radical Extreme Fundamentalist Muslims) believe in nothing short of an entirely Muslim world. Basically, they want the Taleban to rule the world. If we stayed right in our own borders and pulled out of every Muslim country, they'd still believe this.

 

BUT: He's right that (just like Geoge Bush used to say) we're not doing ourselves any favors running halfway around the world nation-building and forcing 'Democracy' down people's throats. Iraq's taught us that if the people don't want it, it ain't happening. And Eastern Europe taught us that if they DO want it, we're irrelevant. (See: Romania - big comparison to Iraq).

 

It's proven fairly stupid to pick a fight in Iraq, but then the 100 other countries where Islamic Terror is taking root. You flush 'em out of one place and they go to another 99. Meanwhile, we spend our days, our lives and a trillion dollars that could be spent elsewhere playing "whack a mole".

 

I don't like the way RP says it, but I agree in principle with what I think he really believes. He's not acquiescing to AQ, he's just saying it doesn't really serve our interests. But, you're right, if he thinks AQ is going to back off if we leave the M.E., he's farking retarded.

 

I disagree with alot of what you say, but ya this makes sense. I don't think by any means Ron Paul meant he's going to check the Al Qaeda doctrine before making any decisions. But to me, it gives a glimpse that he doesn't want to p1ss them off. Don't get me wrong, I don't think we should go around trying to p1ss everyone off, but we shouldn't be afraid of how Al Qaeda will view our actions. They are going to attack us regardless of what we do.

[JWD 0]

you sound like Rudy. And thats not a good thing. I suggest you do a little research on the real reason the 19 scumbag attacked us. You HONESTLY think its because we have freedom here? lol. plz dont be so ignorant.

The reason is called "blowback". Some people just don't get it and never will.

 

 

 

Yes I know im setting myself up with the blowback thing :doh:

[Brad GLuckman 519]

The reason is called "blowback". Some people just don't get it and never will.

Yes I know im setting myself up with the blowback thing :doh:

 

To believe that 9/11was caused by our troops being in Saudi Arabia is just as ignorant as believing 9/11 was caused by Al Qaeda's desire to end our freedom.

[EAwer 1]

To believe that 9/11was caused by our troops being in Saudi Arabia is just as ignorant as believing 9/11 was caused by Al Qaeda's desire to end our freedom.

 

o rly?

[remote controller 143]

I initially couldnt get past his intimation that we were somehow responsible for 9/11 but Ill give him JUST that one slip up. Have any of you found yourself gravitating towards RP lately?

Ru Paul has a better shot at it. Atleast she'd win a city.

[LOD01 199]

I'm on the Ron Paul bandwagon. However, if the masses of focked up humanoids on this planet continue to piss me off with their low IQs, then I give Hillary my vote. Right now it's a toss up.

[JWD 0]

As far as the 16th Amendment never being ratified you'll find it very hard to get to the truth after having exhausted all resources, biased and unbiased. Some say it was just never ratified period. Some say it wasnt agreed upon by the necessary number of states for ratification. Some say it WAS agreed upon by a sufficient number of states however a few of those states at the time were not actually part of the union. Some say they were. Either way, the documents are old and almost impossible to authenticate.....which brings in the conspiracy wacks, almost rightfully so though.

 

Its a tough battle but I dont know of a single person getting away with not paying fed inc tax. Ive seen a few "Ex IRS employees" claiming they've gotten away with it but who knows if they are legit.

 

I believe its an unconstitutional tax and side with RP on this issue. Which is not to say that all taxes are unconstitutional, just FIT.

 

 

It really doesn't really matter if it was ever ratified or not, although I belive it wasn't. The Supreme Court weighed in on the the definition of the "income", the same year the word was used in both the 16th Amendment and the first version of the current imposition on a tax on income.

 

Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 400; 34 S.Ct. 136 (1913) the

Supreme Court stated:

 

"Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from

labor, or from both combined."

 

and

 

" . . . And, however the operation shall be described, the

transaction is indubitably 'business' within the fair meaning of the act of 1909; and the gains derived from it are properly and strictly the income from that business; for "income" may be defined as the gains derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, combined operations and here we have of capital and labor."

 

 

Five years later, the Supreme Court in Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247

U.S. 179, 38 S.Ct. 467 (1918), states:

 

"Yet it is plain, we think, that by the true intent and meaning of

the act the entire proceeds of a mere conversion of capital assets were

not to be treated as income. Whatever difficulty there may be about

a precise and scientific definition of "income," it imports, as used

here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either

as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying

rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate

activities. As was said in Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231

U.S. 399, 415: 'Income may be defined as the gain derived from

capital, from labor, or from both combined.'"

 

 

Also do you know that you will not find the definition of "income" in the tax codes. Why is this, to cause confusion? You can not tax someone by inference or implcation, it has to be clear and plain.

 

So is your income within the Constitutional powerof the U.S. to tax? Is your/ our income exempt under the Constitution? Is our ( the average U.S. worker) "income" really "income" within the meaning of the 16th Amendment, not according to the Supreme Court .

 

As for the Tax Codes, the Supreme Court is a much higher (the highest) ruling power in this country. The Tax Codes are inforced by force not by lawwhich makes them illegal and unconstitutional.

[JWD 0]

He voted to go into Afghanistan where AQ and Bin laden were at the time and to mercilessly kill the phuck out of em all. Which is a far cry from asking permission from AQ. What he didnt do was vote to go into Iraq saying this........

 

“Mr. Speaker; I rise to urge the Congress to think twice before thrusting this nation into a war without merit – one fraught with danger of escalating into something no American will be pleased with. Thomas Jefferson advised: “Never was so much false arithmetic employed on any subject as that which has been employed to persuade nations that it is in their interests to go to war.”

 

We have for months now heard plenty of false arithmetic and lame excuses on why we must pursue a preemptive war of aggression against an impoverished nation 6000 miles from our shores that doesn’t even possess a navy or air force, with the pretense that it must be done for national security reasons.

 

For some reason such an attack makes me feel much less secure, while our country is made more vulnerable.

 

Congress must consider the fact that those with military experience advise a “go slow” policy, while those without military experience are the ones demanding this war. We cannot ignore the fact that all Iraq’s Arab neighbors are opposed to this attack, and our European allies object as well.

 

And if the military and diplomatic reasons for a policy of restraint make no sense to those who want a war, I advise consider the $100 billion it will cost.”

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which I have to admit, seems a bit prophetic today.....except for the gross underestimation of the price tag. I have to admit, I was wrong about Iraq.

 

[BLS 315]

I really don't hear much about people coming here for services. I know i know, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. But i would be shocked to find out more people come here for health services, than americans going elsewhere for services.

 

 

Ummm...ever hear of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester MN? Jordan Princes, Saudi Kings, British Parliament, etc., go there ALL THE TIME for care because it's the best organ transplant facilitie in the world.

[itsbigmoni 1]

Ummm...ever hear of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester MN? Jordan Princes, Saudi Kings, British Parliament, etc., go there ALL THE TIME for care because it's the best organ transplant facilitie in the world.

 

I thought we were talkin about average people. Wiff already talked about what the super rich do.

[JWD 0]

All you have to do is look at the links I provided on page one to prove that thsi is not an accurate statement. May have been at the time he wrote it (dunno), but it sure as hell isn't now. I believe it said something like 10% of Income Taxes collected (Corporate and Personal) are currently allocated to debt repayment.

 

I mean, that doesn't even make sense. When the biggest component (47%) of our tax revenues are PIT, do you honestly think that we're spending almost HALF of our total tax revenues on debt service? A lot of this is just common sense. I like RP, but I don't mindlessly suck in anything just because he's got it on his website. Just step back and ask yourself - look at some of his contradictory comments - Does it make sense that 42-47% (depending upon whose numbers you use) would be spent on federal debt service?

So you would have me believe a goverment that had lied about where our tax dollars were going, only to be proven to be liars by the Grace Commission and President Ronald Reagan seventy years later. And now we live with the most corruption this country has ever seen and I am supposed to just belive what im told? Why won't congress call for an audit on our gold at Ft. Knox? They have been asked to for decades now and to no avail. Is iot because its not all there or maybe none at all? I don't know but they cast a shadow of doubt by not letting us, we the people, an accounting of our gold, not their gold. The paper we carry is only a note to the gold we are to be holding.

 

You can choose to believe whatever you want, and I respect your opinion. But I also think that people in this country are far to easily fed a chicken schitt sanwhich while being told it is chicken salad.

[BLS 315]

We've had this talk before on this bored. As a 20 year corporate tax guy, I can tell you that's not the smartest move in the world. Sure, sounds great - who wouldn't want to get rid of the big bad IRS?

 

The problem is, you still have to fund the government - even a smaller government. And, the rates that most people quote for the so-called fair tax are woefully inadequate. So, you start upping the expenses of the poorest people in America - who up to now didn't pay much income tax if any. You jump the tax on their phone & power bill (not exactly luxury items) to about 70% cumulative when you add in the 'fair tax'.

 

RP: Oh - wait - we'll give a credit back to people who make less than 30,000 AGI.

 

?? But how will you know?

 

RP: Well, they'll have to file a tax return showing their W-2's and any other deductions...

 

?? But wait! You just told me you were going to get rid of the IRS! And, a lot of these people can't afford to 'front' the government 40% of their expenses for a year.

 

RP: Um... We'll call it the National Sales Tax Bureau. We haven't thought about your second point. We'll get back to you on that.

 

?? Okay, So what about big businesses that won't re-invest, won't upgrade because their costs have now increased by at least 40%??

 

RP: Um... We'll give them exemptions, deductions and accelerated depreciation credits and such.

 

??Huh, so you're saying you'll have the same kind of deductions and loopholes that you're bashing the IRS for, huh?

 

RP: Well yeah, No. Maybe. It'll be different I swear!

 

?? Oh, Okay. So, you'll hike the cost of medicines by 40%...

 

RP: NO, we didn't say that. Of course, we'd have an exemption for that.

 

?? Oh, Okay. So, you'll hike the cost of food for all Americans..

 

RP: No, exemption there too. (this one's really fun - check out sales tax rules on grocery items - it makes the FIT code look like a grade school primer!)

 

?? Oh, Okay. So, we're already paying huge taxes - as much as 50% or more on Gas. You're going to add ANOTHER 40% to that?

 

RP: No, exemption from there too.

 

?? Um, I think I see where we're headed.... (and we're already there)

 

 

You were wrong at the bolded part. So the rest of your argument is inconsequential.

 

The Federal Income Tax only accounts for 39% of the Federal Revenue annually.

Want to know where we'd be in levels of spending if the Federal Government cut it's spending by 39%?

 

1939?

1952?

1978?

1992?

 

Try the YEAR 2000.

 

I think KNOW we could afford to go back to what we were spending in the year 2000 if we would stop our bloated spending on foreign policy.

[BLS 315]

Have you checked out what he does say about this. I haven't, one aspect of everything he says I'm about.

 

 

Was thinking of just making a thread for this but eh, "Longshot" White House hopeful Paul takes in $4.3 million

 

24 hour web drive. That's grass roots support. Assuming it was mostly individuals and not organizations giving a lot of $ at once.

 

There were ZERO corporate donations and he does NOT accept matching funds from Washington.

[itsbigmoni 1]

But what would israel do without our 30 billion over the next 10 years? If we don't rebuild iraq, who will? How are we gonna survive if we don't have troops in as many countries as possible?

[EAwer 1]

So you would have me believe a goverment that had lied about where our tax dollars were going, only to be proven to be liars by the Grace Commission and President Ronald Reagan seventy years later. And now we live with the most corruption this country has ever seen and I am supposed to just belive what im told? Why won't congress call for an audit on our gold at Ft. Knox? They have been asked to for decades now and to no avail. Is iot because its not all there or maybe none at all? I don't know but they cast a shadow of doubt by not letting us, we the people, an accounting of our gold, not their gold. The paper we carry is only a note to the gold we are to be holding.

 

You can choose to believe whatever you want, and I respect your opinion. But I also think that people in this country are far to easily fed a chicken schitt sanwhich while being told it is chicken salad.

 

its a sad sad day when in America they people are more afraid of the government then the government is of its people.

[BLS 315]

I like Ron Paul's Domestic policy moreso than any other candidate.

But I don't agree with him asking permission from Al Qaeda to carry out foreign policy.

It is for that reason, and because I think he may be insane, that I cannot vote for him.

 

 

That is quite possibly the most uninformed statement I've ever heard. Do you know how long I've been on this bored??

That's saying alot.

 

Hurry up...Hannity is still on.

[BLS 315]

I never said I liked how Bush carried out his foreign policy either, so let's calm down a bit.

Like I said, I really like Paul's domestic policies.

But watching Ron Paul in the debate gave me more than enough reason to never vote for him. Being afraid of Al Qaeda and not wanting to make them mad shouldn't have any bearing on foreign policy. If you want to say we shouldn't have invaded Iraq because it wasn't necessary or we needed troops in Afghanistan then I'm fine with that. However comments like this, to me at least, mean he wants to give in to Al Qaeda and try not to make them mad, and just hope they go away.

 

 

 

If you know anything about Al Qaeda then you know they aren't going away, even if Ron Paul is elected and tries to play nice with them.

 

First of all, I think everyone is being too harsh on ya.

You have to understand something first....Fox has a hard on for Ron Paul...because he is a legitimate threat against their neat little world that they've built with Rush and Hannity and Levin and Bush and Cheney (the Neo Cons).

 

That was a Fox moderated debate. Go to youtube and watch any other debate and him talking about Iraq. Fox spins it so he looks like a kook.

Watch this video...http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5680612450286236792

It might help explain some things about foreign policy and why Al Quaeda was created and WHY they hate us.

[BLS 315]

He voted to go into Afghanistan where AQ and Bin laden were at the time and to mercilessly kill the phuck out of em all. Which is a far cry from asking permission from AQ. What he didnt do was vote to go into Iraq saying this........

 

"Mr. Speaker; I rise to urge the Congress to think twice before thrusting this nation into a war without merit – one fraught with danger of escalating into something no American will be pleased with. Thomas Jefferson advised: "Never was so much false arithmetic employed on any subject as that which has been employed to persuade nations that it is in their interests to go to war."

 

We have for months now heard plenty of false arithmetic and lame excuses on why we must pursue a preemptive war of aggression against an impoverished nation 6000 miles from our shores that doesn't even possess a navy or air force, with the pretense that it must be done for national security reasons.

 

For some reason such an attack makes me feel much less secure, while our country is made more vulnerable.

 

Congress must consider the fact that those with military experience advise a "go slow" policy, while those without military experience are the ones demanding this war. We cannot ignore the fact that all Iraq's Arab neighbors are opposed to this attack, and our European allies object as well.

 

And if the military and diplomatic reasons for a policy of restraint make no sense to those who want a war, I advise consider the $100 billion it will cost."

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Which I have to admit, seems a bit prophetic today.....except for the gross underestimation of the price tag. I have to admit, I was wrong about Iraq.

 

 

HOLY FUCKINGSHIT....WHO STOLE BOZ"S PASSWORD?!!?!?!

[BLS 315]

I thought we were talkin about average people. Wiff already talked about what the super rich do.

 

 

Sorry...I didn't see 'rich people' in your quote.

 

My bad.

 

But I think the point to make is that the US does HAVE the best facilities because of FREE MARKETS. IE - The best get paid the best.

[itsbigmoni 1]

Sorry...I didn't see 'rich people' in your quote.

 

My bad.

 

But I think the point to make is that the US does HAVE the best facilities because of FREE MARKETS. IE - The best get paid the best.

 

I agree we have the best facilities, but the drop off in quality isn't nowhere near the drop off in cost. But, if money isn't an issue, than fock yea i wouldn't go anywhere but an american facility.

[BLS 315]

I agree we have the best facilities, but the drop off in quality isn't nowhere near the drop off in cost. But, if money isn't an issue, than fock yea i wouldn't go anywhere but an american facility.

 

 

The problem IS government. Lobbyists for big HMO's buy votes from Congress to make laws that force us to buy within our own states.

Then the huge Hospitals buy votes to allow charging the maximum for anything. Why do you think an injection of antibiotics for example, costs $300?

Because the consumer, for one, IF he/she has insurance...doesn't care. They don't beleive they're paying for it...quick $30 copay, and you're on your way.

If consumers were forced to SEARCH around for the best 'deals' such as in grocery stores, TV service, you name it...the price of everything would drop.

 

Ron Paul makes a great argument....Medicine is one of the most technologically advanced realms there is. And yet it's the only one where prices don't drop, yet they increase over time.

[VikesFan 1]

You and I've been down this path before. Idiots whine and cry about "Socialized Medicine", but that's not what it's about at all. And nobody worth two shiits is talking about taking the profit out of health care. Do you ever hear anybody whining about "Socialized Military?" Dunno how many times we have to go through this: The Fed Government makes companies richer than they'd ever be without it. Many of the major American companies today - From car companies to candy makers - ARE major companies today because the Fed Gov was the biggest customer by a longshot.

 

Again: HMO #1: 300,000 customers charging 12,000 annually in premiums and setting the average price for services at a 50% profit margin for Drs. and hospitals.

 

Gubmint steps in. Pools 3 MILLION customers charging each $500 annually in premiums each - and setting the average price for services at a 25% profit margin - but guaranteeing 3 Million customers.

 

If you're a major health care provider, which one are you going to choose?

 

For the same reason big companies can offer lower health care premiums lower than small companies, so can the Fed - Pooling. Size matters. Business 101.

 

I'm going to resurrect a post I made 10 months ago at this site, because I believe it is very relevant to this discussion.

 

Here's a little more food for thought. I spent a good chunk of this year being one of those underinsurred folks. I left a job working for Abbott Laboratories (a pharmaceutical firm by the way) which had pretty decent benefits and took a contracting position out here in Indiana. The benefits package with my contractor was horrible (200/wk and only 15k in coverage). If you do the math on it, it makes no sense.... Here's what I did. I bought a high deductable, major medical plan. I can swing a $100 trip to the doctor, but I can't swing a car accident that sends me to the emergency room.

 

People who treat heathcare as a right want every little detail covered under that program. That is nothing more than utterly foolish. Costs are skyrocketing for a number of reasons. When you don't actually pay for your medical use, nothing stops you from checking into the emergency room for a cold or calling 911 over strep throat... BECAUSE YOU AREN'T PAYING FOR IT. And let's face it, when it's free, we don't think about it and just take and take and take. That is a large reason why medical costs are rising. People don't just go for preventative care. They go for anything, and the melodramatic can successfully raise the costs for all of us. That's one of the big reasons why the Canadian system and every other universal system has failed and will continue to fail... IT SIMPLY CANNOT WORK. People are simply too short sighted.

 

Add to this a few more things. Having worked in the pharmaceutical industry, I can attest to a few things.

 

1) There isn't much competition in this industry

2) Blame the government and the insurance companies just as much for driving up a huge chunk of the costs. Yes, the Pharms are greedy, but lest you forget, it is an oligopoly (not a monopoly) that is driving up our costs.

 

I'm not against patent protection, as I believe it is necessary. I am against reformulating drugs so that you can extend the patent. I'm also largely against the FDA. First, it costs $500 million for a Pharmaceutical company to bring a drug out to the market. This effectively removes the little guy from even competing. Second, the FDA has done more to keep good drugs off the market then it does for bad drugs. Good drugs being kept off the market invariably never gets publicized, but for every VIOX, politians scream for more control, and they usually get it. It is as if people naively think that everyone should react safely to every drug or else it shouldn't be released. That's utterly stupid. My medical care should be because of an informed decision between me and my doctor. I don't need the government telling my doctor what drugs/treatements I can and cannot take, and that is what it does right now. That's foolish, and might I add, it's allows the pharmaceutical companies to ignore treatements for diseases simply because of them not making any money because they know that the population will never get access to them. Doctor's high salaries are a part of it, but when you have insurance out there effectively stifling competition, nothing gives them a reason to lower them. Third, the FDA has shown time and time again that, like every other government organization, it can get too cozy with political supporters. It has done nothing about aspertame poisoning, despite the fact that it makes up more than 75% of it's non-regulated product complaints. Aspertame, btw, breaks down into formeldahyde, and his been unofficially linked to a number of disorders such as weight gain, liver problems, diabetes, cancer, etc. They did nothing about the use of thimerasol in vaccines (a mercury based additive to vaccines for preservation, which BTW in a single dose gives more than 5 times the safe limit of mercury--now think about what 5 vaccines will do to your kid in a day), and only recently has thimerasol been officially linked to autism, despite the fact that many have demanded that this link be explored, for many many years. Congress, of course, was quite kind to step in a year or two ago and at the behest of their lobyists, made sure that the vaccine makers could not be held liable for this, despite the evidence that indicates that it was covered up.

 

The government has done a horrible job managing healthcare now... AND WE WANT TO ADD TO THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES?????????? Are we really that dumb? I'd just assume have nothing to do with this.

 

Doctors salaries remain high because they don't have to compete (thanks to insurance companies). Pharmaceutical prices remain high due to the government. Insurance companies pad those costs by being profit centers and paying millions in payouts to CEOs and creating massive beaurocratic labyrinth's that make it hard to get treatment. Other than switching to a cash only system and abolishing insurance companies (as was already suggested), I can only thing of one decent fix:

 

1) Make all insurance comanies go not-for-profit. Get rid of them if you can. If you don't believe me, look at how the prices of uninsured medical care (lasix, plastic surgery, etc) have dropped b/c over the last 10 years compared to the prices of products covered by insurance. 2) abolish the FDA (or significantly scale it down) and allow doctos and patients to make honest decisions 3) Allow patent protection for 7 years only, at which point anyone can manufacture generics.

 

That's not a fix, but I guarantee it will allow for cheaper costs then what we are getting now.

 

Switching to government based healthcare will not make things better. The government has done a lousy job managing what it has had this far, and we want to give it more power? do you really want a Department of Healthcare being run in a way similar to how FEMA was run during Katrina? And has anyone here actually thought about how it is that we are going to pay for this? Our country is going bankrupt. We are something like 10 Trillion dollars in debt at the federal level and that debt is growing daily. The result of that has caused a dramatic drop in the dollar, casuing our gas prices (and everything else) to rise rapidly. The government won't raise interest rates (will cause recession) but has no problem continuing the trend by printing more and more money, thereby devaluing what little we haev already. HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR THIS? What is going to stop corporations from significantly dropping health care coverage once this plan is in place? Are people really this short sighted to think that this will somehow work?

 

I know this thread was about Ron Paul. I'm an avid supporter, as many know, and the one thing Paul continues to bring up is the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. We CANNOT afford these entitlement plans nor our massive empire. It will drive this nation into bankrupcy. People are leaning towards Ron Paul because people who hear him realize that our current level of government spending is unsustainable. The sooner we recognize this, the sooner this problem gets fixed.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

o rly?

 

Damn right. There is no one reason why we were attacked. And to think that if we pulled everyone out of the whole region it would make Al Qaeda our buddies then youre crazy.

 

First of all, I think everyone is being too harsh on ya.

You have to understand something first....Fox has a hard on for Ron Paul...because he is a legitimate threat against their neat little world that they've built with Rush and Hannity and Levin and Bush and Cheney (the Neo Cons).

 

That was a Fox moderated debate. Go to youtube and watch any other debate and him talking about Iraq. Fox spins it so he looks like a kook.

Watch this video...http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5680612450286236792

It might help explain some things about foreign policy and why Al Quaeda was created and WHY they hate us.

 

Harsh on me? No no that's fine. I'm not going to take offense from internet people like Edjr. I think we all know he is a joke. But again...I'm sick of hearing about Bush and the neocons. Nobody in this election comes even close to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush or the neo-cons so lets just throw that out the window. BUSH IS NOT RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION. It's so annoying to see that everytime anyone disagrees with a candidate (whether it be Hillary, Obama, Paul etc) I have to hear about how evil Bush is. Watched the video, nothing new there. Ron Paul doesn't want us to intervene in other people's business...that's fine. But read this quote:

 

The fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11. So why leave them in the region?

 

There is a big difference between not intervening, and letting terrorists dictate our foreign policy. How is this unclear. And I don't want to hear about how he mis-spoke. No he didn't watch the video, he makes it very clear that we should stick to our own business which is fine....but couple that together with the above quote (which wasn't in the video) and I see a man who wants to close our eyes and hope for the best. As I stated before....Al Qaeda is going to attack us. Accept it. Fight it. But don't hope that if we do what they want, that they will stop. That is ignorance.

[wiffleball 4,797]

You were wrong at the bolded part. So the rest of your argument is inconsequential.

 

The Federal Income Tax only accounts for 39% of the Federal Revenue annually.

Want to know where we'd be in levels of spending if the Federal Government cut it's spending by 39%?

 

Try the YEAR 2000.

 

I think KNOW we could afford to go back to what we were spending in the year 2000 if we would stop our bloated spending on foreign policy.

 

What does this have to do with anything? That's right out of RP. Regardless, Your reading comprehension of RP is all F'ed up.

 

1) ETA: Read this graph. The numbers change from year to year, but the proportions are close. http://encarta.msn.com/media_461547847/U_S...l_Revenues.html

2) First off, you need to break down PIT vs. FIT. (for these purposes, "personal" vs. "Business")

3) PIT (what RP proposes to get rid of) is 47% of the revenues recieved (RP says 42) (this particular graph says 44% - immaterial)

4) The next biggest chunk - Can't (or shouldn't) be used for anything other than Social Security

5) Which basically leaves about 19% from FIT and other sources to fund our government.

 

How many times do i have to re-write what you guys have already posted from RP

 

A) RP says "Let's cut our (non-debt) spending by one-third". (NOT by the amount of Income Tax like you say. - Totally wrong - Someone's already posted that from RP.

 

B ) RP proposes to cut PIT (47%-42%) depending upon year. Since we can't touch an already underfunded SS, that leaves us with 19%

 

C) PLUS no borrowing, PLUS pay off all our debt.

 

I don't know why I'd have to spell this out twice. BUT:

 

CAN YOU cut your annual revenue down to 19% (only thing remaing after PIT and SS) and say, "Yeah, BUT: I'm REDUCING my spending by one third!"

 

Do you not GET that 42-47% (income reduction) is >>>>>> 33%?? (expense reduction)

 

You can't cut your income down to 19% (just FIT, no PIT as RP proposes) AND: Pay down your debt. - And say you'll pay for it by cutting your spending by one-third. The numbers just don't work.

 

I really don't know how much clearer I can be on that. You posting what our spending levels were is pretty focking irrelevant to the equation. RP challenged us to cut our spending by one-third, and in return, he'll cut out 42-47% of the country's income.

 

Tell ya whut, give me half your income. In return, I'll pay 1/3 of your bills. Good Deal?

[itsbigmoni 1]

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul has thought about that and has answers. Its not like your some highly esteemed expert that thought of this and opened everyones answer. If a knowledgeable (but not some leading analyst) person such as yourself can come up with these questions, i'm sure he has experts around him that brought up these issues.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul has thought about that and has answers. Its not like your some highly esteemed expert that thought of this and opened everyones answer. If a knowledgeable (but not some leading analyst) person such as yourself can come up with these questions, i'm sure he has experts around him that brought up these issues.

 

RP's answer is if we pull back our "empire" as he says from Korea, Iraq, Afg.etc, and get rid of many govt. programs and handouts etc etc which cost us billions upon billions to keep operational then our govt could operate very well minus the IRS and its responsibilities. His is a macro approach, you cant look at one of his ideas without looking at his entire platform. Of course we couldnt operate the way we do today and just dismantle the IRS, thats not what he's saying.

[JWD 0]

To believe that 9/11was caused by our troops being in Saudi Arabia is just as ignorant as believing 9/11 was caused by Al Qaeda's desire to end our freedom.

That is not what I said at all. It has to do with our foreign policies. We created OBL and his freedom fighters in the eighties to thwart the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the Mosha Hadin or however it is spelled. Our CIA trained and armed them. Then not so many years later they began attacking U.S. interests abroad and in our homeland. This is whats know as blowback.

 

Our troops being in Saudi Arabia is only a part of the reason. I think the biggest reason for the hatetred towards the U.S. is our support of Israel over the last sixty or so years.

[BLS 315]

What does this have to do with anything? That's right out of RP. Regardless, Your reading comprehension of RP is all F'ed up.

 

1) ETA: Read this graph. The numbers change from year to year, but the proportions are close. http://encarta.msn.com/media_461547847/U_S...l_Revenues.html

2) First off, you need to break down PIT vs. FIT. (for these purposes, "personal" vs. "Business")

3) PIT (what RP proposes to get rid of) is 47% of the revenues recieved (RP says 42) (this particular graph says 44% - immaterial)

4) The next biggest chunk - Can't (or shouldn't) be used for anything other than Social Security

5) Which basically leaves about 19% from FIT and other sources to fund our government.

 

How many times do i have to re-write what you guys have already posted from RP

 

A) RP says "Let's cut our (non-debt) spending by one-third". (NOT by the amount of Income Tax like you say. - Totally wrong - Someone's already posted that from RP.

 

B ) RP proposes to cut PIT (47%-42%) depending upon year. Since we can't touch an already underfunded SS, that leaves us with 19%

 

C) PLUS no borrowing, PLUS pay off all our debt.

 

I don't know why I'd have to spell this out twice. BUT:

 

CAN YOU cut your annual revenue down to 19% (only thing remaing after PIT and SS) and say, "Yeah, BUT: I'm REDUCING my spending by one third!"

 

Do you not GET that 42-47% (income reduction) is >>>>>> 33%?? (expense reduction)

 

You can't cut your income down to 19% (just FIT, no PIT as RP proposes) AND: Pay down your debt. - And say you'll pay for it by cutting your spending by one-third. The numbers just don't work.

 

I really don't know how much clearer I can be on that. You posting what our spending levels were is pretty focking irrelevant to the equation. RP challenged us to cut our spending by one-third, and in return, he'll cut out 42-47% of the country's income.

 

Tell ya whut, give me half your income. In return, I'll pay 1/3 of your bills. Good Deal?

 

 

Fuckit..go read it yourself and then come back.

http://ronpaullibrary.org/index.php

[Brad GLuckman 519]

That is not what I said at all. It has to do with our foreign policies. We created OBL and his freedom fighters in the eighties to thwart the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, the Mosha Hadin or however it is spelled. Our CIA trained and armed them. Then not so many years later they began attacking U.S. interests abroad and in our homeland. This is whats know as blowback.

 

Our troops being in Saudi Arabia is only a part of the reason. I think the biggest reason for the hatetred towards the U.S. is our support of Israel over the last sixty or so years.

 

That's fine, but obviously our plan wasn't to have them turn on us, obviously we didn't want Saddam to turn out as he did, or Castro for that matter. I have no problem with Ron Paul wanting to stay out of other people's business. But I think he goes too far, on the opposite end of the spectrum as Bush. He sounds to me, that if he were president during WWII he wouldn't have involved America. It took Pearl Harbor to get us involved int he first place and our delay greatly focked some European nations. Now maybe preemptive strikes against anyone we don't like isn't a good idea, maybe nation building isn't a good idea...but neither is closing your eyes and hoping the bad guys will just go away. Because as I stated before, we are where we are now and Al Qaeda is not going to give in just because Ron Paul gets elected and butts out of everyone's business.

 

As far as Israel is concerned, you can blame those who had no business drawing boundaries after WWII for that mess. If I were to support Israel or Palestine, why would you support Palestine? They have showed nothing but desire to wipe Israel off the map. Why is it when they say this, we try and negotiate. But any mention of Hitler or the atrocities he committed are looked at as evil. Both are horrendous, yet somehow today Americans have accepted the genocide so many Palestinians desire as a bargaining chip. I'm sure Paul says why get involved in the first place? Well we sell weapons to Israel to defend themselves, pay Egypt to leave Israel alone. Maybe, just maybe American leaders don't want to see an entire region murder an entire race.

 

So if you are going to say we are wrong for supporting Israel I will strongly disagree with you. They are surrounded by nations that would like nothing more than their elimination. Whether you think they belong there or not, they are there. And I would support them far before I support men blowing themselves up to kill innocent people. We can argue all day over who really has rights to that land, but it has been ran through so many times by so many nations it's ridiculous. And yes I know Israel is not 100% innocent in this fight either.

[VikesFan 1]

To believe that 9/11was caused by our troops being in Saudi Arabia is just as ignorant as believing 9/11 was caused by Al Qaeda's desire to end our freedom.

 

You may want to re-read the 9/11 commission report then.

 

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/?pid=195576

[Angry White Male 0]

Ron Paul is a joke. He has no chance, he's a RINO that wants us to surrender to the terrorists. RuPaul is more likely to win the Presidency than this phuckin clown.

[Brad GLuckman 519]

You may want to re-read the 9/11 commission report then.

 

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/?pid=195576

 

Dude...again...I'm saying there is no one reason. And that no matter the reason, no matter how much we change our foreign policy...they ar not going to stop.

[Bad Santa 29]

On this very site, in 2004 I said Hillary was going to be the next president after GWB and people laughed at me.

 

 

That's not why we laugh at you.