If Ron Paul doesnt win, America will regret it.

It's really rather sad. I could make out a plan that WOULD work for the country but everyone from all political sides would most likely shoot it down because I am an average 24 year old American who was raised in poverty. I would like to support Ron Paul but am unsure if that would be a good choice when I look into it and see that it seems as if the man feels that those who are poor need to figure it out themselves and if they can't come up with something screw em.

I am not going to sit here and lie through my keystrokes... It is indeed very true that there are poor in America who leech off of the system and expect everything in life to be handed to them. Yes, it's sad how true that is. However, I myself have never been fortunate enough to know anything other than poverty in the U.S.. Having grown up in such an environment I can honestly confirm that while there are indeed those of us who think America owes us, there are also those of us who would love to have a career that would provide us with an income with which we can live an average middle class life. Without government assistance the poor cannot pay for an education, be it in academics or a trade, which is a requirement in almost every field these days.

Some Americans believe that education is a privilege rather than a right. This is such an absurd opinion. Why should a person not be able earn an average lifestyle for themselves and their children simply because they were born into poverty? Did they do something wrong? I don't think so.

Now I am fully aware that there are many people who have never had to live in poverty who believe that those who do should work their way through school. That's great in theory. Wanna know the problem? It is hardly possible in the United States of America, even more so if you already have children. I am married with two children and my wife and I are both college students who grew up in poverty, she has a 3.8 gpa and I have a 3.6 gpa, I know those aren't perfect but they are above average in America. If the federal student loans were not an option there would be no way we could afford to go to school. Private student loans are not an option for many poor because their families can't cosign, such was the case for us. Not to mention the fact that private student loans will put a person more in debt than the federal student loans will, look it up if you don't believe me.

Either way, until Dr. Paul can address how he plans to allow for the poor who actually care about their futures to have a chance at success in this country I cannot vote for him. To be honest it really sucks because there isn't a single politician running for president that I can get behind at the moment and Ron Paul would be the closest if it wasn't for the fact that everything I've read about him seems to point to him feeling as if the poor deserve to be where they are. I could go so much farther with this piss poor constructed rant but unfortunately time does not allow it. I apologize for any grammatical mistakes, unfortunately this is just a slap together rant intended to get my opinion on this out there. I'm sure those of you who take the time to read it will understand what it is that I am trying to say and I invite those who feel that I am wrong to tell me why and how I am wrong.

I think that no matter who wins the next election for President....it will still be a mess. After all we have everyone that it in the congress, legislature, and senate....who are they? What are they really about? Also...in each state we have politicians to contend with.

Even if Ron Paul is elected....it is going to be difficult for him....or anyone who is elected. They don't have a magic wand...and it is going to take a long time before America gets on its feet again.

reply to post by caladonea


We all need to hope that America will get back o its feet again. Honestly these greedy men that we have allowed for far too long to own us have already done so much damage that I question whether or not we can come back from the damage. Maybe after a civil war if we are able to take the power from these men, then we may have a chance.

reply to post by caladonea


I agree but because the others never had experience in politics and magically got elected "some how" they wouldnt understand how to operate a presidency, not for Ron Paul...Dr. Paul has extreme financial understandings.

reply to post by Evolutionsend


No...no Bush and Obama are bad news and Rick Perry is part of a Corporation deal to destroy America.

for the riches it goes like this

"FOLLOW THE MONEY, people dont matter"

No, no they won't.
Nor would I.

2012 is another case of voting for the least of worst Presidential candidates.

M.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
The Owners - which yes, tdoes include Ron Paul - don't want an end to poverty...impoverished, unemployed people make an easy sorce of cheap labor, and cn be induced to compete against each other, thus suppressing their own wages This is the "free market" ideal held by Ron Paul - free for the people who own the markets, slavery for the people who work for those people.

Refusing to bail out the mega banks and wanting to dismantle the war-for-profit industry is hardly “enriching the wealthy”... Rarely do politicians speak out against these institutions, let alone lead a charge against them as Ron Paul has done for the past 20+ years.

Some "owner" that Ron Paul is. So much so that both the "liberal" and "conservative" media are censoring him.

It wasn’t that long ago when a single member of a household could support an entire family; afford a home and two cars with much LESS income than current day.

Contrary to your opinion on what “causes” poverty, nothing is more destructive than a worthless dollar, which is why until we reform our debt based monetary system, nothing will get better.

I find the minimum wage argument fascinating. This premise that if it weren’t for minimum wage laws, people would get paid fifty cents an hour. How is it that AYNONE makes more than seven dollars an hour now?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
No, actually, they're not. The answer isn't "burn it to the ground then piss on it" like Ron Paul and most others advocate. The answer is to fund the goddamned thing. Same with Medicaid, because, again, Ron Paul and his allies in the Legislature dont think poor people deserve to live.

Must be nice having all that taxpayer-paid health insurance, I guess.

Actually Ron Paul has refused to accept government health care or the lucrative life long pension. He’s called it “hypocritical and immoral”.

Social inSecurity is bankrupt: Not In 25 Years, Social Security Is Bankrupt Now

Medicare has been ANOTHER failed program from its very onset: The Bankruptcy of Medicare

Medicaid, again, is bankrupt: Rising Medicaid Spending to Bankrupt States, Federal Government

And surely the answer isn’t to force Americans to pay into a bottom less pit of failed government ventures, especially not on the federal level.

It has to be obvious to even the most brainwashed observer that government programs DO NOT WORK.

So without the government, we’d "all be dead"…wow.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
How's that massive deregulation working out for you, Paul fan?

Deregulation doesn’t allow one to commit fraud. There are TONS of regulations, too much regulation, the effect of which is driving businesses overseas and burdening the small business owner, which is the main engine of job creation in America.

The problem is the fact that no one is held accountable for their crimes. No bank was allowed to fail. No one was prosecuted. None of the existing rules, laws or regulations are enforced.

Do you know why the costs of health care and education have skyrocketed? Is it the least bit possible that government involvement is the cause of the problem, not the solution? Is it that difficult to understand that when health care or education or housing is subsidized by the government, that it distorts the market. That the providers have absolutely no incentive to cut costs or eliminate waste or to stream line because they know the bill will be footed by the government…

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Actually just the opposite. The problem is, of course, these test scores only measure literacy and mathematics. This ties back into a concerted effort by "conservatives" in our nation - once again including Ron Paul - to dismantle and sell off our education system.

Actually, yes, education is tanking. And guess which country spent the most…


The United States spent the most on education in 2001 at roughly $500 billion, followed by Japan, Germany and France at $139 billion, $89 billion and $82 billion respectively.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Then Americans should stop being dumbasses who keep electing politicians who openly state that their mission in life is to make damn sure everything the government touches ends in failure. Jesus, man, it's pretty simple. When you elect men and women who say "I hate the government" they are going to screw it up. You can't goddamn complain about this stuff when you're advocating one of the very people whose made that destruction his life's work.

Ma’am, the government has not been filled with people who “hate it”. As a matter of fact, those who want to reform the system are prevented from being elected. Our government is filled with establishment minions who change very little regardless of their Party affiliation, which is why we are in this current mess.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Fine, then Paul and Perry can secede Texas from the union, so we can have an experimental test to see how these ideas pan out. I have absolutely no interest in throwing my country into a spiraling nosedive because of the free market bullcrap being peddled by some tax sponge twit from Texas, especially when I can look around the world and see so many states where this "plan" has ended up in failure and misery.

It has nothing to do with seceding. It has to do with eliminating/reforming a federal bureaucracy which has a hundred year track record of failures and waste.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Paul's foreign policy is actually something I can support. It's his domestic policy that makes me want to puke. So also note that he's been very hedgy about cutting the defense budget. All those graphs and charts that show the Navy and Army and such contributing to Paul? Those count lobbying firms attached to those branches as well. It's not just individual men and women passing their $5's and $10's to the guy. You... did know that our armed forces have lobbyists, right?

So the lobbyists whose business depends on a state of constant warfare are supposedly contributing to Ron Paul who wants to end the war-for-profit industry? I guess they’ve made too much money and have seen the error of their ways?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
The only reason our domestic programs are failing is because of the constant cuts they receive. The only reform they need is funding and application. Under Paul, the answer is "burn it all to the ground, then hire private contractors to do it all at a profit for them and a loss for us"

Ma’am, look at the funding projections for the bottomless pit of failed government programs. Contrary to the typical government lies and spin by the “trustees”, its in the TRILLIONS. There is no possible way that Americans or the all powerful, all knowing, benevolent government can pay for it.

Social Security and Medicare Projections: 2009

And if for some reason we were to keep borrowing and printing money to fund these failures, do you realize that the purchasing power of our dollar would be substantially LESS than it is now?

What are all these poor, helpless, people going to do with money that doesn’t have the ability to purchase anything? Well, the all knowing and wise government would need to print a lot more of it, which would only accelerate its devaluation. But hey, those 250 million dollar denominated bills do look kinda cool.


I understand that you believe that Ron Paul’s reforms are not helpful. As a matter of fact, you seem to think that he wants to “hurt people”…

News flash: government causes the problems. Government is not your savior.

Ma'am, look, we’ve tried it “their way” for nearly a century, so lets try a different approach just once. And believe me, after four short years, there will be a thousand establishment Republicans and Democrats who will return us to our current state of decline.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
No, but privatizing public assets does. You do know how privatization works, don'cha?

Yes, a private business strives to cut waste and run an efficient operation because if they dont, the business will fail, unlike government, which seems to think that it can continue to function regardless of their perpetual failures. But alas, like many other governments around the world, their days of fiscal insanity seem to be coming to an abrupt end.

Theres no question that a private corporation could do virtually any task more competently than government, which isn’t saying much.

As far as privatizing ALL public lands, I’d have to look more into the issue, but I am firmly against the concept of government seizing private property to transfer ownership as was the interpretation of the Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
...when you have a system in place to care for the poor, and then a new administration enacts policies that make more poor people? The costs of the initial program will go up, since it has to deal with a larger load of people.

...if a business hires people with an openly stated interest in making hte business fail, then odds are that business is going to fail. So when you elect politicians who openly state htye want the government to fail, why do you seem to expect them to actually make it succeed? It's stupid, and you guys need to cut it out.

Well I do agree with you here, the government has definitely helped to create poverty.

Who has said that they “want government” to fail and who has gotten elected on this premise? Government has failed on its own. Central planning does not work.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Again, this ties into the privatization efforts.

Privatization in education has resulted in yet another failed government program?

Please explain.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
By deregulating everything. Just like they said they would. Which is why you elected them. Do you feel smart now?

So the government causing the housing bubble via Fannie, Freddie and the “Federal Reserve” is the fault of “deregulation”?

Please explain.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
I'm all for paying my taxes to help people who need help. This is because I'm not a sociopath.

Madame, trust me. As stupid as you may be (not saying you are stupid), the government cannot spend your money more wisely than you. If you want to help the “poor”, work to get the government out of your purse and donate directly.

Have some faith in yourself and your abilities.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Scraping the bloated ticks off its hide will help. Reallocating funding in a manner that will benefit the people of this nation would go a long way. Unlike your apparent ideology, which calls for shooting it in the head and walking away.

Ma’am, have some faith in the ability of people to make better decisions than the government. The government has a horrendous track record.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
So let's sell it all off to Microsoft, Exxon, and Monsanto, who have a flawless track record.

Who is advocating the “selling of government to private corporations”? How does one even do that? We want to end the system of crony capitalism, no more bailouts for the rich on the backs of the American tax payer.

We’re advocating that the government STOP. Stop the insane spending, borrowing, inflating and taxing. Stop the endless pattern of failed bloated programs which always result in catastrophes. Stop the ever increasing police state. Stop the endless wars. Get off our backs and get out of our lives.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Again, let him lead by example. Paul and Perry can become the president / VP of the Restored Texas Republic, and show us how it's done.

How in your mind does transferring responsibilities to the states equal secession? Every state has its own executive, judicial and legislative branch, and none of them have seceded…

I have to ask, can or has the government done anything wrong? Have they screwed anything up?

But wait, its not their fault. They’ve been sabotaged by government hating Representatives and deregulation and “privatization”…

The government loooooooooves us and is only trying to help, correct?

reply to post by gladtobehere


No government = Anarchy.

I'm sorry, but I have NO faith in Americans to function with smaller government.

In fact, I see MORE room for corruption and MORE room for oppressing those without means in a smaller government.

reply to post by The Sword


i misunderstood your post reply, but uh smaller government is better because it cannot enforce martial law.

reply to post by The Sword

Ron Paul isn't advocating "no government". He would like to see the majority of functions shifted to the state level. In-case you haven't noticed, the federal government has a hundred year track record of failures. Virtually every program they touch is ruined or bankrupted.

Well, what do you suggest be done when government is the source of the oppression and corruption?

"If Ron Paul doesnt win, America will regret it"

If Ron Paul dosent win,and the person they do elect leads this country to ruin,then we Americans have only ourselves to blame.

If the America chooses to elect a person,than whatever comes from it is deserved.
Wars,homelessness,job loss,etc.

If Ron Paul isnt on the ticket,im just not voting.
Even though I'll still have to suffer through whatever garbage is thrown at us from the president elect.

At least my conscience will feel better that i didnt choose to elect the tool.

Just my 2 cents.

Cheers~!~

reply to post by The Sword

No government = Anarchy.

I'm sorry, but I have NO faith in Americans to function with smaller government.

By definition, yes. Of course the ancient Greeks were capable of fending off the Persian empire despite that they were an amalgamation of city-states. Not that their system was perfect, but to arrive at an agreed understanding of what perfect constitutes is, as accentuated by the posts just in this thread, subjective.

As for your lack of faith in smaller government (and what is really being said here is your lack of faith in a smaller federal government) there is the proverbial excluded middle: state government.

Anyone who has taken the time to understand Dr. Paul's position knows that he is an advocate of state's rights. State governments are closest to their constituents and as such better represent their values. Want a dichotomy? Compare California with virtually any blue state. And the District of Columbia best represents the values of whom? You? Me? The people of this nation? Admittedly, I don't know how to answer that question. But let me finalize my thoughts with this fashionable maxim that is probably worth its weight in salt: If it's too big to fail then it's simply too big.

reply to post by Black_Fox


i agree with you, and i can see why America is going into a depression..i was taking a detour of my home city and most of those "sheeple" were as happy and controlled as they've ever been

YEAH FLUORIDE!!