Why do you oppose Ron Paul?

Well I'll put it this way:

The fact that he said tornado victims in the Midwest should have had tornado insurance, and that he wouldn't support federal aid to those same victims, is absolutely unconscionable. While it may be fair to the rest of us, IMO it's not the right thing to do from a moral perspective, and that about sums up my feeling on Ron Paul: He's so obsessed with what's fair that he loses sight of what's right.

Plus, I'd rather wait for legalization than vote for Ron Paul... prohibition doesnt really affect me beyond the occasional minor inconvenience.

 

Stealing from people in order to pay other people is neither fair nor right.

Ah, so because it doesn't affect you it's cool. Fuck all those people in prison for non-violent drug offenses.

 

This is what gives me a headache every time i start going into politics on the internet, people are so noncompassionate. Say your neighbor is diagnosed with cancer, and unable to pay for his own medical bill. I dare you to go up to him and tell him that it doesn't concern you, and that you don't care whether he lives or dies. Look into his eyes and honestly tell him that you don't care about his life. That is, as far as I can tell, the ideology that you're embracing, so you may as well follow through on it.

The people of America have become so self-centered that they no longer know how to make sacrifices. We didn't win WWII by only caring for our individual selves- we gave things up, went without others, and contributed to the war effort. Why? Because we are all Americans, and we take care of our own. Selfishness, such as the type that libertarianism advocates, solves nothing, and, in fact, exacerbates our societal ills, all caused by selfishness in the first place. It's like putting out a gas fire by pouring even more gasoline on it.

before you begin with the whole voluntarism business... as much as i hate to say it, people in this country are too hateful and too ignorant to take initiative on such matters of their own accord. that's not to say everyone is that way, but i'd imagine its safe to say that the majority of US residents, if you put them in the position to help someone out, a total stranger, by making a sacrifice, they'd opt out, preferring to hold on to their resources. Thus, it's nessecary to compel them to help their neighbor.

It's not an issue of being able to afford such a program, it's an issue of wanting to- if we pared down military spending and got our foreign policy heads out of our asses, we'd have plenty of money to spare. These savings, combined with a slight tax increase on our megarich friends, would enable us to afford most if not all the social programs we wish.

 

So my compassion should be forced upon me via gunpoint and imprisonment? I have awesome neighbors, if one of them came to me and told me they had cancer and couldn't afford treatment, I'd find a way to give them some coin. I shouldn't be paying for the well being of folks who live in tornado or flood prone areas who aren't smart enough to carry proper insurance. Or your cancer ridden neighbor.

 

so its ok that people are homeless without any government aid because you dont want it to affect you (which it doesnt, you're going to pay your taxes one way or another and i sure as hell would rather have my money going to help people not kill them) then you judge someone for saying the same thing about something else???

your logic:
X for Y is wrong because it effects me.
you're wrong because you dont want X for Y because it doesnt effect you.

 

Selfishness? If you care so much about tornado victims, go donate your money. If I don't give a shit about them, why should I be forced to pay taxes that will provide them aid?

The Midwestern states could set up their own natural disaster relief using state taxes. This would have all the benefit of people helping them without the downside of stealing from people who were in no way impacted by tornadoes. Not to mention the fact that a state would be much more efficient at this type of thing than FEMA since they (ie the people in that state) would be able to customize the agency to their needs instead of trying to rely on a one size fits all bureaucratic nightmare.

Oh and before I forget, FEMA sucks ass at helping people. They're pretty good at sucking up money and handing it out via no bid contracts though.

 

No one said anything about gunpoint or imprisonment here. All I'm proposing is that you stomach your oh-so-American pride and get down to the business of helping your fellow citizens. We are all American citizens, we are all brothers, and we all deserve aid when we need it.

Furthermore, voluntarism doesn't account for the fact that in situations of extreme crisis, as in a tornado zone, the resources if individual people cannot feasibly be gathered and applied quickly enough to make for the effective action needed to save lives and property. Thus, we pay taxes, which are de facto insurance payments to the de facto insurance company that is the government.

There is, at the base level, very little that is different between a private corporation and a government- they provide services to consumers (taxpayers), who give them money in return.

Americans have a curious fear of the national government. But the truth is that no body has the resources at its disposal to efficiently solve problems facing the entirety of our nation, but the federal government. I agree that FEMA does indeed suck, but the answer is not paring down government, it is reorganizing and streamlining the various bureaucratic strata.

 

Ron Paul said lending assistance to natural disaster victims would be an acceptable over reach of federal power, so he's not impractical.

What I don't get is why the federal government needs to be involved with everything, just let the states deal with it.


And to the kid who said "you'll be paying taxes no matter what", no, that's what we want to change. Shrink government and shrink taxes.

I agree with Ron Paul that we can lower taxes and spending, and provide even stronger social programs.

 

I was ground zero for many hurricanes following before katrina. Katrina actually passed south of me, and I wasn't even hit except for some small rain.

The hurricanes before that, all very big, and destructive, lots of win and rain, many hours I spent collecting loads and loads, and loads of shingles on my wheelbarrow, cutting trees, cleaning my pool, etc .... Did we wait for FEMA to come clean up? No ... the community immediately reacted and our entire neighborhood pitched in and helped each other out. People without power in one house, or just didn't have the know how to cook food without electricity....provided food for those in the neighborhood by other means; travelling for red cross meals or cooking everything on the propane grill...did we wait for FEMA to relieve us? no..because they wouldn't have come anyways

There are cases of those victims who suffered most in Katrina, obviously who lost their homes, had very FAULTY trailers..and by what I mean faulty is - Chemical Spills inside trailers, major leaking, electrical outlets burst and create fires, disgusting trailers that were "redone" at the last second to be only discovered by those who had gotten a trailer to replace their home.....now.. I don't know the answer to everything, without those trailers, where would these people go? I don't know, but what I do know is - some funds could/should have been allocated more directly towards strategical necessities and perhaps more transportation.....

An entire lot of school buses - I mean HUNDREDS of school buses - were left to basically sit and rot out in the hurricane flood waters..when they could have been used to shuttle people out before the storm, which there was plenty of time to do so ..... and they were ruined - costing more money


What it comes down to is the FEDs inefficiency at their jobs, FEMA (Terribly bankrupt)..what have you




You know, funny this is, there's my neighbor down the street, both drive extremely expensive BMW's...both work for FEMA ... not that it has to do with anything..but.....still...

 

this may have been a working philosophy decades ago, but in the increasingly interconnected cities of the modern USA, it's no longer feasible to shirk such important duties to the states. State lines are increasingly becoming blurred due to the digital revolution, and which state has authority where is becoming ever more difficult to tell.

The federal government, while it has its share of problems, is capable of solving them if we'll put aside the partisan bickering and get to doing real work for the American people.

 

Nationalizing issues is a step backwards.


And you're preaching to the gat-damn choir on that bolded there...A huge, godamn choir.....

 

States have their own unique amount of total revenue. When poor states with poor economic conditions- therefore a low expendable tax pool- faces a disaster, whether it be financial or natural, their recovery expenditure is only in proportion to their budget. Which ultimately and obviously makes the less prosperous in worse off conditions. The answer most likely given by a libertarian is simply "immobilize from the poor states then, thus ensues competition!". Many flaws can be pointed from this statement alone, for now I shall only mention that the US has the worst social mobility rates in the modern world, which would only hinder the worse off even further.

That aside, didn't the forefathers agree the Articles of Confederation was a failure? Do libertarians really want someone like Rick Perry operating his own mini-country; while possibly either controlling nuclear weapons or selling them to ultrarich corporations (doesn't the RP budget dissolve the sole department that manages our nuclear weapons?)?

 

Nationalizing issues that we face as a nation? It all comes back to Americans' deeply ingrained, nigh-genetic, disposition to rail against all authority, even that which is trying to help them. The federal government is not some evil group of men sitting somewhere planning how they're going to rip people off of millions. But you know what is?

All those corporations sitting around somewhere planning how they're going to rip people off of millions. Like they did during the Gilded Age, and the entire 2000's.

 

Ron Paul sucks haha, he's so old.

 

do you really not recognize all of the things you use every single day that were paid for by taxes? ok you know what if your property is ever on fire and the firemen show up tell them to gtfo because you dont believe in taxes. or if you get shot dont go to the police and ask them to bring the person to justice.

 

Who cares? He's mentally clear ... He gets up and walks/rides bikes for a few miles every morning... in my book, that's more exercise than many americans get in a week...


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9NfOIsPFTM[/ame]