i can't vote quite yet but i can sure as hell try to change some minds!

                        "join the revolution"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvrrPCkHKLw

                          "Stop Dreaming"   
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8

            WATCH 'EM!

the only running republican who is against the war. he supports gays, he voted against the patriot act, voted against internet regulation and taxation, never voted to raise taxes, sticks to the constitution and hey, he even supports violent videogames. this guy is my hero. check out his myspace. http://myspace.com/ronpaul2008

He's a wonderful wonderful man and I'm quite certain would prove to be an excellent leader, bold in the face of adversity and compassionate in the face of horror..

Of course, he'll never be elected because he dosen't appeal to the Christian Fundamentalist mob.

He's a wonderful wonderful man and I'm quite certain would prove to be an excellent leader, bold in the face of adversity and compassionate in the face of horror..

Of course, he'll never be elected because he dosen't appeal to the Christian Fundamentalist mob.

This is why we need Christian Concentration Camps.  :)


maybe a little too harsh? he does say that religion shouldn't be banned in public schools by the federal government but rather by the parents and the county.
 
still, he could make it to the final two. 25% of republicans dissagree with the war. ron paul is one of 12 republican candidates, so 25% could very well get him in. and after that, i believe there are more republicans than democrats in this country, and the way ron paul views the war, i'm sure a few democrats (like myself) wouldn't mind switching over. he even prefers a small government. his views SCREAM democrat!

maybe a little too harsh? he does say that religion shouldn't be banned in public schools by the federal government but rather by the parents and the county. and he doesn't support gay marriage. he's against gay discrimination though.
   
still, he could make it to the final two. 25% of republicans dissagree with the war. ron paul is one of 12 republican candidates, so 25% could very well get him in. and after that, i believe there are more republicans than democrats in this country, and the way ron paul views the war, i'm sure a few democrats (like myself) wouldn't mind switching over. he even prefers a small government. his views SCREAM democrat!

maybe a little too harsh? he does say that religion shouldn't be banned in public schools by the federal government but rather by the parents and the county.
 
still, he could make it to the final two. 25% of republicans dissagree with the war. ron paul is one of 12 republican candidates, so 25% could very well get him in. and after that, i believe there are more republicans than democrats in this country, and the way ron paul views the war, i'm sure a few democrats (like myself) wouldn't mind switching over. he even prefers a small government. his views SCREAM democrat!


No such thing as too harsh with the fundies, if given half a chance they'd take your thoughts away.

More than 25% of Republicans disagree with the war. Ron Paul does stand a chance, but essentially he's a long shot. To begin with I threw my backing behind Giuliani because he was mainstream enough to be a viable candidate and he reflected my views, over the course of the year he has continued to alienate individuals such as myself by basically trying to be a bigger, badder, Italian Bush. Wrong move Rudy.

Well, real Republicans do support small Government, it's just the past couple haven't actually been Republicans, they've been shameful embarrassments.

In order for Dr. Paul to create the kind of "small government" he believes in--government that truly is small--he'd have to start a Constitutional revolution.

It is easy to dismantle social programs for the poor because the poor can't fight back.  Hence, that's what our government has done for the past 30 years.  They tore down the "Great Society" and called it "reducing the size of government."  It didn't.  It cut back on a portion of social spending, but the federal government continued to grow in size and strength through the past five administrations.

Our leaders for the past generation have also broke the back of labor unions and business regulations.  They called this creating opportunity for individual initiative or empowering the entrepeneur.  The effects were 180 degrees from this. 

The Republicans killed efforts to nationalize healthcare.  That would seem prevent the growth of big government.  Instead we have a hodgepodge of medicaid programs and an opaque medicare system.  All of these are still more cost efficient than private insurance, but they are still an unwieldy bureacratic mess.

When the Republicans came for Social Security, they got pushed back.  If you live in a tony suburb, you might not know anybody who knows anybody who receives food stamps.  However, everybody has somebody in their immediate family who receives social security benefits.  If we had nationalized healthcare and a political party proposed to do away with it, the people would likewise rebuff the effort.  That's why Republicans killed "Hillary Care" in the cradle.

Of course, you know the old saw about the folks all wanting to see a cut in government spending, but still demanding their representatives "bring home the bacon."  One of the best ever at bringing home the bacon, Mr. Reduce-The-Size-of-Government himself, Newt Gingrich. 

Hypothetically, if Dr. Paul was to win the presidency, he would be starring at a congress of 535, each one of whom must get re-elected by his or her constituency.  He would also face an entrenched lobbying machine that props up an even more entrenched government--corporate crony capitalism.  He would also face the teachers unions, agricultural interests, defense contractors, and countless bureaucrats who like their job security thank you very much.  In short, Dr. Paul would find himself surrounded by heavily-armed foe!

Right-wingers swagger about their rugged individualism but would quickly change their tune when they realize what the government bureacracy that doesn't do anything for them....actually does for them!
::)

Basically, the American people don't really want what Ron Paul is selling.  They want the benefits of high taxes without paying high taxes.  Reagan and Dubya delivered on that promise....by putting the entire country into hock for unfathomable amounts of debt.  Ron Paul would not go for Republican "borrow-and-spend" any more than he would Democratic "tax-and-spend" policies. 

I respect Dr. Paul's ideological integrity, but neither he nor anybody has shown me, for instance, how to get the government completely out of healthcare and let consumer-driven free markets determine the costs.  How shall the free market allow a hospital to buy a $2 million PET scan machine for $50,000?*  How does the free market get a working stiff whose take home pay is $300 a week a blood workup, which now costs $300+, for the $35.00 that person can squeeze into a stretched budget?   What is the "consumer-driven market" versus what things actually cost versus what a consumer can actually afford?

Libertarians such as Ron Paul would fob off government costs onto the humanitarian efforts of private charity, which would become overwhelmed quicker than you can say "Ron Paul"! 

The one time I saw Dr. Paul being disengenous about healthcare was when he posed the question, "Before Medicare, did you ever hear about elderly people suffering because they couldn't get the medical care they needed?" 

Yes, Dr. Paul, that was known as "dying."  Elderly people without families to take them in did go hungry and cold before Social Security...and its still a problem.  The lifespan was shorter because there were fewer life-saving pharmaceutical and less preventative medical technology.  Dr. Paul, an obstetrician, knows this damn well.
::)

*Of course the Libertarian rejoinder here is, government involvement inflates the price, and yet our own government-administered healthcare programs are much more cost-effecient than the private market, so I'm not buying it!

No such thing as too harsh with the fundies, if given half a chance they'd take your thoughts away.

More than 25% of Republicans disagree with the war. Ron Paul does stand a chance, but essentially he's a long shot. To begin with I threw my backing behind Giuliani because he was mainstream enough to be a viable candidate and he reflected my views, over the course of the year he has continued to alienate individuals such as myself by basically trying to be a bigger, badder, Italian Bush. Wrong move Rudy.

Well, real Republicans do support small Government, it's just the past couple haven't actually been Republicans, they've been shameful embarrassments.


yeah, i can't stand giuliana. he thinks to good of himself. and why doesn't ron paul stand a chance?

so maxwell, are you saying congress won't allow him to do what we vote him in to do? that really sucks.

so maxwell, are you saying congress won't allow him to do what we vote him in to do? that really sucks.

Not quite.  I'm saying Congress won't allow him to do what we vote Congress in not to allow him to do! 
:-\\

Joe Sixpack:  Hey, Mr. Congressman, take care of my and mine! Screw everybody else!

That's what really sucks!

Didn't Ron Paul run for President during another election cycle as a Libertarian?  Rather vote for him than Mitt or Brownback. :P

you know, one of the reasons i really like Ron Paul is that when he does his speaches it sounds adlibbed. all the other candidates seem pre-reahersed

you know, one of the reasons i really like Ron Paul is that when he does his speaches it sounds adlibbed. all the other candidates seem pre-reahersed

Like I said about Paul--
Sometimes I agree, sometimes I disagree, but he's not speaking behest of public opinion pollsters, he's not speaking for some "triangulation" strategy, they man is saying what he believes...and for that you don't need a lot rehearsal.

Like I said about Paul--
the man is saying what he believes...


  and for that, i respect him!

check out this video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2407112996596651631&q=ron+paul&total=3967&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

ok, these guys talking at the end of the video are really getting to me! how can they be so ignorant! ron paul is not saying that 9/11 was our fault. he's simply saying that it was a response to our foriegn policy! THAT'S ALL! those idiots act as if he's acusing them of flying the damn planes into the wtc's!  (or in the circumstance of conspiracy planted the thermite caches and demolition bombs)

maybe a little too harsh? he does say that religion shouldn't be banned in public schools by the federal government but rather by the parents and the county.
   
still, he could make it to the final two. 25% of republicans dissagree with the war. ron paul is one of 12 republican candidates, so 25% could very well get him in. and after that, i believe there are more republicans than democrats in this country, and the way ron paul views the war, i'm sure a few democrats (like myself) wouldn't mind switching over. he even prefers a small government. his views SCREAM democrat!


   EVEN prefers a small government..?  That's the core tenant of the Libertarian Party with whom he maintains close ties.  The Congressman had to re-register as a Repub. to keep his seat...

   Maybe the Libertarians' star is rising in America - the Democrats are in shambles, the Republicans out of control.  How refreshing it would be..!

  'Sides, Ron Paul has an (R) by his name for pragmatic reasons, not because he's anything like the soft socialists that infest the GOP, but if he wants to maintain credibility with conservatives then, of course, he should leave. The GOP is a sinking ship...

   We're Americans!  We like fluff..!

   

   EVEN prefers a small government..?  That's the core tenant of the Libertarian Party with whom he maintains close ties.  The Congressman had to re-register as a Repub. to keep his seat...

   Maybe the Libertarians' star is rising in America - the Democrats are in shambles, the Republicans out of control.  How refreshing it would be..!

  'Sides, Ron Paul has an (R) by his name for pragmatic reasons, not because he's anything like the soft socialists that infest the GOP, but if he wants to maintain credibility with conservatives then, of course, he should leave. The GOP is a sinking ship...

   We're Americans!  We like fluff..!

   



yes, and i suppose that even if he does win, congress will decide otherwise. there's something terribly wrong with this country. we mine as well be a parlaimentary monarchy with the king and queen elected BY the parlaiment

the Democrats are in shambles, the Republicans out of control. 
   


I disagree.  It's exactly the opposite.  The Democrats are out of control and the Republicans are in shambles.
:-\\

Ron Paul to me appears to be the true patriot of the Republican candidates. Hopefully he'll pick up steam for the primaries, its a long shot, but I guess you gotta have faith.

for the democrats, Hillary has a staggering lead that doesn't appear to be letting up anytime soon...unless Gore enters the race, which is anyone's guess, but it doesn't appear likely.

I gotta agree though, both parties are having major issues. Both the democrat controlled congress and President have record low approval ratings. George W. Bush has done a significant deal of damage to the republican party, and the Scooter Libby pardon will only do further harm.

Its really a bit too early to tell, especially with Fred Thompson yet to enter the race, possibly Bloomberg and....MAYBE, just maybe Al Gore.

Ron Paul to me appears to be the true patriot of the Republican candidates. Hopefully he'll pick up steam for the primaries, its a long shot, but I guess you gotta have faith.



It's not going to be Paul.  That is all.
:(

The best possible scenario to me would be a Hillary/Obama ticket and a Romney/Paul ticket for 2008, as its questionable to how "conservative" both really are. Whether anyone will like to admit or not Hillary does have tremendous clout among females which is 50% of the vote, and thats enough as far as I'm concerned.

The best possible scenario to me would be a Hillary/Obama ticket and a Romney/Paul ticket for 2008, as its questionable to how "conservative" both really are. Whether anyone will like to admit or not Hillary does have tremendous clout among females which is 50% of the vote, and thats enough as far as I'm concerned.




I can't see Paul wanting to play second fiddle to Mitt!

I can't either :-\\

It's not going to be Paul.  That is all.
:(


i know. but i must continue to raise awareness and support him in some way. i have to try. dot you think he'd win if he ran for democrat?

i know. but i must continue to raise awareness and support him in some way. i have to try. dot you think he'd win if he ran for democrat?


   He may get a little more attention if he was a Democrat (as if he's not getting enough of that as of late...)

   What I want to know is how many here would consider switching party affiliations and registering as Republicans to help Paul through the primaries...

   For the general election, of course,  it doesn't matter...

   He may get a little more attention if he was a Democrat (as if he's not getting enough of that as of late...)

   What I want to know is how many here would consider switching party affiliations and registering as Republicans to help Paul through the primaries...

   For the general election, of course,  it doesn't matter...



I wouldn't vote for Paul in any case.  I respect him for his integrity, but I'm not libertarian.
And I'd go into a casket before I'd register Republican.
::)

ron paul was banned from a tax debate in iowa. well that's not fair.

ron paul was banned from a tax debate in iowa. well that's not fair.


   I remember this...

   Well, well, w-e-e-e-ll...

   A little digging reveals much about thel reason Ron Paul was excluded.  Seems that Mr. Ed Failor (is that pronounced "Failure"..?) of Iowans for Tax Relief is a Senior adviser for John McCain's '08 Presidential Campaign..! 

   No underhanded double dealing here, the sneaky sneakin' sneaks...

 

  Oh, I forgot the linky: John McCain-Organization, Iowa

   

   

   

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x12/PnbC/obi-ron.jpg

Ron Paul 2008

....if given half a chance they'd take your thoughts away.


You really don't see what's wrong with this statement when you're calling for "Christian concentration camps"?

What the US really needs is a president who will take all that money that's floating around and put it to good use instead of wasting it trying to meddle in everybody else's business. The reason the US has no decent social safety net is because the money has been wasted playing war games for over 50 years. It isn't the place of the United States to go marching into every country it has a 'problem' with.

Take Iraq or Vietnam as examples of how American military arrogance has made a leader think he can send the boys into a country and basically squash any resistance no problem 'cuz we're America, the greatest country in the world, blah blah'. Well the Iraqi and Vietnamese insurgencies both did something that the reigning presidents ignorantly thought they would never do... call the Americans' bluff and say yeah ok, we got your number and we're going to fight you anyway... to the bitter end. No surrender. Hence why Vietnam was a catastrophic failure and why Iraq is appearing to be yet another all the time.

The US needs to cut the war games crap, because not only is it a waste of money that could be spent on bettering Americans' lives at home and eliminating the utter misery that can be found within US borders, but it's done irreparable damage to the US reputation around the world. Basically, the international community is sick of Joe Yank pushing everyone around and that post-war 'thank you America, we love you' attitude is long gone. Welcome worn. And that's totally the government's fault, not the people's but the people will pay the price. They always do.

We're going into Iran.  It's going to happen.
I'd go for a Paul-Kucinich or a Kucinich-Paul ticket to put a stop to this madness. 
The neo-cons are going to start WWIII and bleed our national treasure white!
:o

We're going into Iran.  It's going to happen.
I'd go for a Paul-Kucinich or a Kucinich-Paul ticket to put a stop to this madness. 
The neo-cons are going to start WWIII and bleed our national treasure white!
:o


Why do so many people act as if Paul and Kucinich are the same candidates?  Ron Paul wants to decrease the number of federal departments and decrease the size of the federal government and Dennis Kucinich wants to do the exact opposite.

Why do so many people act as if Paul and Kucinich are the same candidates?  Ron Paul wants to decrease the number of federal departments and decrease the size of the federal government and Dennis Kucinich wants to do the exact opposite.

Hello?  I was being facetious.

The similarity lies in the fact that neither says what moneyed interests want to hear and neither has a snowball's chance of getting nominated by their respective parties.

Hello?  I was being facetious.

The similarity lies in the fact that neither says what moneyed interests want to hear and neither has a snowball's chance of getting nominated by their respective parties.


Hard to detect sarcasm through words.

But yeah, neither has any real chance.  But I'd say Ron Paul has about a 1.5% chance of winning the republican nomination while Kucinich's chances of winning the democratic nomination are around absolute zero.

Hard to detect sarcasm through words.
Oh, is it now?

But yeah, neither has any real chance.  But I'd say Ron Paul has about a 1.5% chance of winning the republican nomination while Kucinich's chances of winning the democratic nomination are around absolute zero.

Why does 1.5% versus absolute zero matter?  Really?
???

Hard to detect sarcasm through words.

But yeah, neither has any real chance.  But I'd say Ron Paul has about a 1.5% chance of winning the republican nomination while Kucinich's chances of winning the democratic nomination are around absolute zero.



  i don't understand. something like 28% of republicans don't support the war. ron paul is the only republican who doesn't support the war. almost all democrats don't support the war. if he got on the ballot, he could win. but that will never happen. another problem is that most democrats refuse to vote for a republican (my parents) and don't even take the time to look into it. 

i don't understand. something like 28% of republicans don't support the war. ron paul is the only republican who doesn't support the war. almost all democrats don't support the war. if he got on the ballot, he could win. but that will never happen.

You would think that issues should and would matter, but they don't.  Winning the primary for either major political party is mostly about two things: money and name recognition.

What if Ron Paul became president?  In lieu of an extra-constitutional coup, Paul would still have to contend with congress.  But what if the Libertarians finally got the "small government" they always wanted?  There "small government" isn't a small government most of us would like.

"Small government" does not translate into "individual freedom."  Not necessarily.  I have seen little interest from Libertarians in maximizing freedom equitably among all men and women as individuals.  Rather, I see a demand that "freedom" be commensurate with the amount of wealth and property a given individual controls.  The "small government" of Ron Paul would always be big enough for more police and prison guards for his government would primarily function an instrument of surveillance and punishment of the have-nots and protection of the property of the haves.

What if Ron Paul became president?  In lieu of an extra-constitutional coup, Paul would still have to contend with congress.  But what if the Libertarians finally got the "small government" they always wanted?  There "small government" isn't a small government most of us would like.

"Small government" does not translate into "individual freedom."  Not necessarily.  I have seen little interest from Libertarians in maximizing freedom equitably among all men and women as individuals.  Rather, I see a demand that "freedom" be commensurate with the amount of wealth and property a given individual controls.  The "small government" of Ron Paul would always be big enough for more police and prison guards for his government would primarily function an instrument of surveillance and punishment of the have-nots and protection of the property of the haves.


Oh please.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/NA-AN848_PAUL_20070830231902.gif

Oh please.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/NA-AN848_PAUL_20070830231902.gif

You got a more high-res version of that?

You got a more high-res version of that?


Not that I can post.  You'll just have to click this link:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/NA-AN848_PAUL_20070830231902.gif

What if Ron Paul became president?  In lieu of an extra-constitutional coup, Paul would still have to contend with congress. 


  president bush didn't have to do that when we went to war. maybe ron paul can find a way around congress too.  ;D

   president bush didn't have to do that when we went to war. maybe ron paul can find a way around congress too.   ;D


Yes he did.  Congress voted to authorize the war.  Just ask John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

What? Ron Paul?  Ohhhhh...I thought you said RU Paul.  That's more fun.

Yes he did.  Congress voted to authorize the war.  Just ask John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.


        yes they did vote to authorize the war, after bush made the first strike. just ask ron paul.

I stand by my earlier statements.

I saw him on C-SPAN tonight.  He was talking a good game at the Robert Taft Club...because he can.  The problem is we're on one shore, his vision is on the other, and there's an ocean of sharks in between.  He's saying the "experiment on liberty hasn't been going on for very long, but in the past 100 years we've lost it." 

Uhhh...Dr. Paul?  Ron, If I may, would you care to explain how much liberty there was in 1907, and for whom?
:o

There's a whole bunch of stuff I agree with Paul on and a whole bunch of stuff I disagree with Paul on, but he's short on answers on how to actually accomplish any of it.

The Libertarian philosophy demonizes government so much that it concludes in the very absence of government, liberty shall flourish.  I see no evidence for this.  Yeah, wouldn't it be great if we could get out of the empire business, and take care of social welfare via private initiative, and run Big Brother out of town so we can drink and smoke what we want and drive as fast as we want.  I'm not a rich guy by U.S. standards, but I sure get sick of the state taxing my wages for social security I'll never see, and making me fill out paper work every Spring to show them they took the money out of my pay that they took.  It's like you making me give you a hundred dollars and then making me fill out a bunch of crummy forms demonstrating I gave you a hundred dollars.  Of course, I know it's more complex than that, but it strikes me as silly sometimes.  Yeah, you know, back in 1920 a motorcar was a luxury, so the state taxed it as a luxury.  You know what?  Nobody asked me how we should design our civic infrastructure over the past 80 years, but they way we designed it requires me to own a car.  I wouldn't own one if I didn't need one!  Yet, the state makes me pay excise tax for the damn car.  What was it the Beatles said about taxing your feet?  It's nuts!

I'm sorry to sound like a bitter cynic, but if Big Government isn't there to meddle with your liberties, Big Business will pick up right where Big Government left off.  I'm not on medicaid.  I'm on private insurance.  So, I have trouble falling asleep at night.  My doctor prescribed Ambien.  BC/BS only covers 14 days worth of the Ambien per month.  That's not what I want, and that's not what my doctor wants, but the insurance company pencil-pushers make the rules.  The Libertarian rejoinder here would have something to do with "government regulation."  I'm not convinced.  Big business, such as insurance, has a lot of power.  One thing I know about power is once people have it, they don't let it go without a hell of a fight.

I certainly sympathize with Ron Paul and people who support him.  But let's not kid ourselves about the great liberties of yesteryear when the state forbade Blacks and Whites from socializing together and employers were free to say "No Irish need apply."  Sure, we didn't need social security for the elderly because the elderly were so few in number.  In 1907, If you lived to be 60, you were pretty damn fortunate.  Now it's expected. 

Furthermore, if Paul wants the yo-yo vote, he's going to have to knock off the references to Grover Cleveland, Robert Taft, and Austrian economists.  This only serves to confuse....
:D

The Libertarian philosophy demonizes government so much that it concludes in the very absence of government, liberty shall flourish.  I see no evidence for this.  Yeah, wouldn't it be great if we could get out of the empire business, and take care of social welfare via private initiative, and run Big Brother out of town so we can drink and smoke what we want and drive as fast as we want.  I'm not a rich guy by U.S. standards, but I sure get sick of the state taxing my wages for social security I'll never see, and making me fill out paper work every Spring to show them they took the money out of my pay that they took.  It's like you making me give you a hundred dollars and then making me fill out a bunch of crummy forms demonstrating I gave you a hundred dollars.  Of course, I know it's more complex than that, but it strikes me as silly sometimes.  Yeah, you know, back in 1920 a motorcar was a luxury, so the state taxed it as a luxury.  You know what?  Nobody asked me how we should design our civic infrastructure over the past 80 years, but they way we designed it requires me to own a car.  I wouldn't own one if I didn't need one!  Yet, the state makes me pay excise tax for the damn car.  What was it the Beatles said about taxing your feet?  It's nuts!

Good points.  Ron would serve better as a counter to more government spending than as a initiator for implementing better programs.  Still, I like "Dr. No."  He'd keep pork out of the legislative process.  Of course, because of that, he'll never win.  K Street hates him like no other.

Still, privatizing Social Security would certainly fix part of the problems you mentioned above.

I'm sorry to sound like a bitter cynic, but if Big Government isn't there to meddle with your liberties, Big Business will pick up right where Big Government left off.  I'm not on medicaid.  I'm on private insurance.  So, I have trouble falling asleep at night.  My doctor prescribed Ambien.  BC/BS only covers 14 days worth of the Ambien per month.  That's not what I want, and that's not what my doctor wants, but the insurance company pencil-pushers make the rules.  The Libertarian rejoinder here would have something to do with "government regulation."  I'm not convinced.  Big business, such as insurance, has a lot of power.  One thing I know about power is once people have it, they don't let it go without a hell of a fight.

Universal healthcare is one of the few "big government" schemes I support.  I feel this way because of exactly what you wrote here.  France has shown us that this system can work, and if we replicate their system, we'll be in much better shape as a country.

I certainly sympathize with Ron Paul and people who support him.  But let's not kid ourselves about the great liberties of yesteryear when the state forbade Blacks and Whites from socializing together and employers were free to say "No Irish need apply."  Sure, we didn't need social security for the elderly because the elderly were so few in number.  In 1907, If you lived to be 60, you were pretty damn fortunate.  Now it's expected.

This is the unfortunate blindside of Libertarianism and why not many non-white people like it.  When a movement waxes nostalgic about times like those, it's kind of hard to expect black people or gay people to relate to it.  They'd be much better off accentuating their support for civil rights, in order to attract minorities.

Good points.  Ron would serve better as a counter to more government spending than as a initiator for implementing better programs.  Still, I like "Dr. No."  He'd keep pork out of the legislative process.  Of course, because of that, he'll never win.  K Street hates him like no other.

Still, privatizing Social Security would certainly fix part of the problems you mentioned above.

Universal healthcare is one of the few "big government" schemes I support.  I feel this way because of exactly what you wrote here.  France has shown us that this system can work, and if we replicate their system, we'll be in much better shape as a country.

This is the unfortunate blindside of Libertarianism and why not many non-white people like it.  When a movement waxes nostalgic about times like those, it's kind of hard to expect black people or gay people to relate to it.  They'd be much better off accentuating their support for civil rights, in order to attract minorities.



Bingo.

The concept of Libertarianism is wonderful if one is already living in essentially an egalitarian society. But the very fact of the matter is that without intervention from a body on high, those with the power will divide those without the power and in this country those with power are white, Christian males. I'm very much against the concepts of affirmative action and giving people extra chances based on the color of their skin, but even I would be disgusted with the inevitable results of a totally Libertarian society. Essentially, what Max was saying "No Blacks Need Apply." and of course it's legal because it's at the companies discretion, if they believe they can make more of a profit if they don't hire black employees then they're within their rights to do so.

I'm willing to support 4-8 years of big government if it ushers in the creation of a Universal healthcare system, because I can guarantee right now, once it was established it wouldn't go away, you saw what the reaction was to curious George and his plans to do away with state guaranteed social security.

Talking about that, I did enjoy his ideas on Privatizing social security. If I'm not mistaken, social security taxes are used to purchase Government bonds, which in his run down of social security, George called useless pieces of paper.. now.. stop me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of his key ideas with private social security.. to buy T-Bills and such like as an investment for the future. Essentially doing the very same thing the government is doing now, but just adding more paperwork and confusion for the average citizen?

Bingo.

The concept of Libertarianism is wonderful if one is already living in essentially an egalitarian society. But the very fact of the matter is that without intervention from a body on high, those with the power will divide those without the power and in this country those with power are white, Christian males. I'm very much against the concepts of affirmative action and giving people extra chances based on the color of their skin, but even I would be disgusted with the inevitable results of a totally Libertarian society. Essentially, what Max was saying "No Blacks Need Apply." and of course it's legal because it's at the companies discretion, if they believe they can make more of a profit if they don't hire black employees then they're within their rights to do so.

Very true...  The main inconsistency in Libertarianism is that it acknowledges the negative nature of government due to human nature, but it seems to overlook how the same human failings affect businesses.  It's like they assume that people are less selfish outside of the government than in it -- which is obviously not true.  If anything, one might be able to say that the private sector is more ruthlessly selfish because they aren't subject to the same laws and scrutiny as government is.  Then again, in America, corporations and government are virtually one and the same due to our out-of-control lobbyism and political pork.

I'm willing to support 4-8 years of big government if it ushers in the creation of a Universal healthcare system, because I can guarantee right now, once it was established it wouldn't go away, you saw what the reaction was to curious George and his plans to do away with state guaranteed social security.

Talking about that, I did enjoy his ideas on Privatizing social security. If I'm not mistaken, social security taxes are used to purchase Government bonds, which in his run down of social security, George called useless pieces of paper.. now.. stop me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of his key ideas with private social security.. to buy T-Bills and such like as an investment for the future. Essentially doing the very same thing the government is doing now, but just adding more paperwork and confusion for the average citizen?


The only catch with universal healthcare is that we must secure our borders and deal with illegals (and their employers) before we institute it.

Privatizing social security basically allows people to invest the funds in stocks and mutual funds instead of government issued bonds.  The reasoning behind this is that government bonds don't have the same return rates as private sector investments do.  The main failing of the current Social Security system is that it was never set up to appreciate funds properly to account for inflation.  This is why, after years of accumulation, the system is approaching bankruptcy.

We need to move away from Social Security altogether, but the AARP doesn't like that idea.

Very true...  The main inconsistency in Libertarianism is that it acknowledges the negative nature of government due to human nature, but it seems to overlook how the same human failings affect businesses.  It's like they assume that people are less selfish outside of the government than in it -- which is obviously not true.  If anything, one might be able to say that the private sector is more ruthlessly selfish because they aren't subject to the same laws and scrutiny as government is.  Then again, in America, corporations and government are virtually one and the same due to our out-of-control lobbyism and political pork.

The only catch with universal healthcare is that we must secure our borders and deal with illegals (and their employers) before we institute it.

Privatizing social security basically allows people to invest the funds in stocks and mutual funds instead of government issued bonds.  The reasoning behind this is that government bonds don't have the same return rates as private sector investments do.  The main failing of the current Social Security system is that it was never set up to appreciate funds properly to account for inflation.  This is why, after years of accumulation, the system is approaching bankruptcy.

We need to move away from Social Security altogether, but the AARP doesn't like that idea.


Yes, but the key issue that people seem to miss here is that investing in the private sector comes with a risk and you can invest as conservatively and wisely as you want, all it takes is one monumental f**k up and you have no retirement income. Then there's really going to be a problem.

Yes, but the key issue that people seem to miss here is that investing in the private sector comes with a risk and you can invest as conservatively and wisely as you want, all it takes is one monumental f**k up and you have no retirement income. Then there's really going to be a problem.


True, but I'd rather live in a system where you decide your own fate rather than the government doing it.

If someone screws up, they should have to deal with the consequences, whereas I trust my own judgment more than the government's.

 
Talking about that, I did enjoy his ideas on Privatizing social security. If I'm not mistaken, social security taxes are used to purchase Government bonds, which in his run down of social security, George called useless pieces of paper.. now.. stop me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of his key ideas with private social security.. to buy T-Bills and such like as an investment for the future. Essentially doing the very same thing the government is doing now, but just adding more paperwork and confusion for the average citizen?


Nyet, comrade!  Bush II's comments on SS were of the few things he's said that was right.

SS's bonds are not like the T-bills you can buy in the bond market.  They're explicitly designated as non-negotiable.  That's why they reside in a magical filing cabinet at the SS administration, and aren't traded like the CBOE contracts, rate futures, swaps, and other financial futures instruments.

A real T-bill has a market value.  Look it up in the WSJ every day.  Todayish, for instance, the US government will pay you $100,000 in a year, if you give it $94-96,000 today.

A Social Security T-Bill has no market value.  You can't buy it.  Nobody's sellin' it.  It just sits there in the closet.  It's not worth anything, because it represents the US government paying money to itself.  It's like you buying a car for $50,000 -- and when the guy selling the car asks you where you're gonna get the money, you're saying "Dude!  You just loaned me $50,000!  I'll pay it to myself!"

In the narrowest, most legalistic, technical sense, the Dems are right.  If SS promises you'll get $1000/month (or $10000/month, or a million a month, who cares!) in exchange for your lifetime of tax^H^H^Hcontributions to the system, you'll get it.  The US government will tax your descendants (and print as many $US dollars as the printing presses will crank out) to see to it that you get what was promised to you.  No dispute there.

The problem is not that you'll get every US dollar that was promised to you.  You'll get those.  The problem is, they'll be printed on a printing press for the sole purpose of saying "Yup, you got your $1000/month" and there'll be so many US dollars being printed every week that they won't buy you jack or sh~t. 

Take a glance at the US dollar vs. the Euro, the Yen, the Mexican Peso, hell, against the frickin' Canadian Dollar, which is now worth  more than the American dollar for the first time in more than 30 years.  Every American has had at least a 10-20% cut (30-40% depending on your benchmark currency) in his or her net worth over the past few years.

So yes, you'll get every US dollar that Socialist inSecurity promised you.  But by the time you actually get those dollars, if you're very lucky, $1000/month will buy you a can of dogfood. 

The only rational response to a pyramid scheme is to opt out.  That's not an option with Socialist inSecurity -- since we're forced at gunpoint (if you don't think there are guns involved, try not paying your FICA taxes and see what happens) to shovel 6.2% of your salary into the scam if you've got a job, and 12.5% if you're running your own business.

It's still legal to vote with your remaining dollars, by buying stocks of companies who earn their revenues in currencies other than the USD, or by investing in producers of commodities such as oil, agricultural products, or gold... and by voting with your feet (emigration to freer economies) if you must. 

If you think the future looks like crap today, wait'll 2010 when we'll see capital controls imposed.  Then things get ugly.  For historical reference, examine how the Weimar Republic paid Germany's WW1 debts, which was sorta the start of how ugly things tend to get when you've got a lazy apathetic population and a crappy economy that's been crushed by hyperinflation. 

Unfortunately for economists, politicians don't care about economics.
Unfortunately for those ruled by the politicians, economics doesn't care about politics.
Unfortunately for everyone, the politicians don't know any better, and wouldn't care if they did.

What do we need to make our world come alive?
What does it take to make us sing?
While we're waiting for the next one to arrive,
One billion points of light,
One trillion dollar - Vision Thing.

Great post, Foo Bar...  You put that a lot more eloquently than I could...  lol

Yes, but the key issue that people seem to miss here is that investing in the private sector comes with a risk and you can invest as conservatively and wisely as you want, all it takes is one monumental f**k up and you have no retirement income. Then there's really going to be a problem.


Yes, if you're investing your own money, you do have the risk of farking up and losing your retirement.  Anyone who put their Enron 401(k) contributions in Enron stock got burned.  Thing is, they didn't have to do that.  They could have allocated their retirement assets differently.

But if you hate defined contribution plans - where you take responsibility for managing the assets, because you own the assets - let's look at the two other options:

1) Let the government take care of your retirement.  You  know, Social Security (a pyramid scheme whose own chief actuary says that anyone putting money into it now is guaranteed to lose money).  Read the "statement" they send you.  Look at all the loopholes, that basically say "You don't actually own anything here.  We can take all this away with the stroke of a pen".  Any private asset manager who wrote his books the way SS does would be jailed.  Would you deposit your paycheck at a bank with terms like that?  Why would you trust your retirement to such a scam? 

2) Defined benefit plans. Ask any American steelworker, airline worker, or auto worker about depending on The Company for "your pension".  It may be  invested in privately-held assets, but where you do not have ownership and you do not have control over it.  Do you really think your current employer is gonna be here in 20 years without a significant restructuring that either results in "your" pension evaporating (bankruptcy) or (if you're lucky) having its entire surplus being legally handed off to the bondholders in a leveraged buyout?  How about 50 years?  You really trust your employer that much, and you call me the guy who's taking on unnecessary risk?  Dude, defined benefit plans are going the way of the dodo, and thank God. 

The bad news is that TANSTAAFL.  There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

The good news is that portfolio management isn't rocket science.  If a trained monkey can do outperform the professionals (by picking stocks at random, the monkey will perform in line with the broader market indexes, and in so doing, will beat most active fund managers!), then so can you.

The Libertarian philosophy demonizes government so much that it concludes in the very absence of government, liberty shall flourish.  I see no evidence for this.  Yeah, wouldn't it be great if we could get out of the empire business, and take care of social welfare via private initiative, and run Big Brother out of town so we can drink and smoke what we want and drive as fast as we want.
:D



  I'm still not sure if you understand the basic libertarian principle.  Repetition of the "No Government, No Government!" mantra does little to help the movement.  The solution to bigger government is not 'no government', but 'smaller government'...

  Smoking, drinking and seat belt laws..?  Quick, somebody get me the no spin zone!  Hee-hee..! groove ;) on...

Good points.  Ron would serve better as a counter to more government spending than as a initiator for implementing better programs.  Still, I like "Dr. No."  He'd keep pork out of the legislative process. 
Universal healthcare is one of the few "big government" schemes I support.  I feel this way because of exactly what you wrote here.  France has shown us that this system can work, and if we replicate their system, we'll be in much better shape as a country.



  Hi Macphisto...

  Obviously, even to a libertarian, health care is one of the very few enterprises for which a persuasive argument can be made for nationalization, I agree (Unlike education, transportation, energy, charity, etc...)  The theoretical point is that by spreading the risk over the whole population, everyone can afford the payments.  So you have to browbeat the people who consider themselves low-risk into diving into the pool, rather than letting them wait until they get older or have a child with a genetic illness and suddenly see the advantage...

  But the bastardized version of socialized medicine that we have here - HMOs and PPOs - combines the worst elements of the free market with the worst of a command economy.  Medical decisions are made by accountants and attorneys.  Health care is like education: there will soon be more administrators in the field than professional practitioners.  It is becoming just another civil "service" gig.  Rather than adding value to the economy by doing research and healing people, it's just a bunch of bureaucrats looking for ways to justify their jobs groove ;) on...

Obviously, even to a libertarian, health care is one of the very few enterprises for which a persuasive argument can be made for nationalization, I agree (Unlike education, transportation, energy, charity, etc...)

  But the bastardized version of socialized medicine that we have here - HMOs and PPOs - combines the worst elements of the free market with the worst of a command economy.


What he said about the current HMO/PPO setup.  The free market version of health care should be like the free market version of owning an automobile.  You don't claim $50 from your insurance company every time you get an oil change, $200 when you need new brakes, and $2500 when your transmission fails.  You have auto insurance for when someone totals your car, his car, and knocks you into the hospital for six weeks and kills his four kids. 

Problem with medical insurance is the same as it is with auto insurance.  The insurance company is in it to make a buck, not to provide you with care.  The other driver was drunk out of his skull and yapping on his cell phone?  Doesn't matter.  The insurance company's still gonna try to find a way to deny you coverage.  So it goes with medical care:  Pay your premiums, get sick, and get denied coverage because it's cheaper for the insurance company to just let you die than actually treat you.

What was so wrong with walking into a doctor's office and saying "I need a physical.  What's the going rate for a full physical?" "$100."  "Sweet.  Sign me up."  "How's your nose?"  "Sniffly."  "Gimme $15 and I'll give you a prescription that'll knock ya right out."  "Broken arm?"  "Three of us can give you an X-ray, slap a cast on it, and give you a couple of hours of physiotherapy that'll fix the problem and teach you how to rebuild the lost muscle you'll have for about $1000."  "Sweet.  Cheaper than getting new calipers, rotors, pads and bodywork from when that guy messed up my car's front suspension.  And my car doesn't hurt the way I do!")

I'll take exception with Davester on one point:  I'll actually argue that transportation ought to be partially subsidized by the government on the same grounds that he argues for health care to be partially subsidized.  It's a natural monopoly, and it's in the interest of all participants in a market to reduce frictional losses in trading.  Like sick employees, crappy roads (and crappy railroads) aren't in anyone's economic interest.  Also like caring for sick employees, building roads isn't a sufficiently profitable part of most businesses "core business" to justify doing it in-house. 

Negative externalities aren't the only kind of externalities.  There are such things as positive externalities.  For instance, neither  FedEx nor UPS can afford to build a road to your front door and stay in business, and the hospital isn't even in the business of building roads.  But all three of them can make an honest buck (and you can get your ass to the hospital after your heart fails, and FedEx and UPS can get your transplant to the hospital in time to save your ass, which means you can get back to work faster, which means your boss doesn't have to pay tens of thousands to hire your replacement) if you, FedEx, UPS, the hospital, and everyone else is forced to contribute to a fund that ensures that the roads are in good shape. 

It's a necessary evil.  As long as government involvement is regarded as an evil, at least its growth can be controlled.  It's when it stops being an evil (however necessary) and starts being "for the common good" or "for the children!" or "for the war" that  the serious corruption starts to take root, and government starts to mestastitize from the citizen's servant to its ever-growing all-consuming master.  After all, how can anyone be against the common good?  or the children?  or the troops?

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.  It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.  The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth.  Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult.  To be 'cured' against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.  But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we 'ought to have known better', is to be treated as a human person made in God's image."
  -  C. S. Lewis

Lewis was about as Christian as it got, but I think he would have understood Rand better than Rand understood herself.

   I'm still not sure if you understand the basic libertarian principle.  Repetition of the "No Government, No Government!" mantra does little to help the movement.  The solution to bigger government is not 'no government', but 'smaller government'...

I know, I know...then we have to decide who gets to decide how we make government smaller!
Most self-proclaimed libertarians are what I call "business libertarians."  The result of that kind of thinking was Reaganomics-- Capitalists party now! -- Let the poor, the crippled, and the old folks take in the shorts, and send the bill to our grandkids!  No thanks.

Then there are the hippie libertarians who would dismantle national defense and law enforcement, and hand out free everything to everybody while investing in solar-powered tofu trees!  We all know where that's gonna lead!
:P

I have a solution to Social Security:  Index it on life expectancy.  In 1935, life expectancy for an American was 62.  Social secuity benefits kicked in at 65.  Today it is 78.  No social security benefits until your 81st birthday!  I figure as health problems develop in a person's 60s and 70s, and as employment becomes harder and harder to maintain, a dandy number of Americans who would otherwise live to be 90 would die at 75 because of the worsening illnesses, hunger, and stress.  It's a lot cheaper for the rest of us if you get struck down by a heart attack working the fields at 68 than if you get to ride the golf cart around the Florida condo complex and set your watch for times you have to take the 16 medications that keep your major systems from collapsing when you're 94!  It's not romantic, but, you kow, f*ck it!  The Bible says 70.  Three score and ten, then hang it up  Big G did that for a reason.  Do you know what Adam's diastolic pressure was when he was 630?
:o

   Hi Macphisto...

   Obviously, even to a libertarian, health care is one of the very few enterprises for which a persuasive argument can be made for nationalization, I agree (Unlike education, transportation, energy, charity, etc...)  The theoretical point is that by spreading the risk over the whole population, everyone can afford the payments.  So you have to browbeat the people who consider themselves low-risk into diving into the pool, rather than letting them wait until they get older or have a child with a genetic illness and suddenly see the advantage...

   But the bastardized version of socialized medicine that we have here - HMOs and PPOs - combines the worst elements of the free market with the worst of a command economy.  Medical decisions are made by accountants and attorneys.  Health care is like education: there will soon be more administrators in the field than professional practitioners.  It is becoming just another civil "service" gig.  Rather than adding value to the economy by doing research and healing people, it's just a bunch of bureaucrats looking for ways to justify their jobs groove ;) on...


100% agreed...  have some karma