I've formed an opinion of Ron Paul: He's a dick.

[Danno]

Two U.S. states are bigger than France. IMHO two is < quite a few

None of 'em have a bigger population.

facts have no place in this discussion.

[Spats]

That's quite a stretch to compare a bunch of autonomous European countries with different histories, languages, traditions, etc. to the U.S.

No. After the American Revolution, the states were individual autonomous governments under the Articles of Confederation. Quite a few states opposed the new Constitution, and the most lasting effect of the anti-Federalists was the "Massachusetts Compromise", which added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, and thus gained enough support from the anti-Federalists to pass.

The balance that resulted from the Constitution and subsequent interpretations by the Supreme Court, now called "Dual Federalism", reserved almost all the power to the states (see this handy list) and persisted for over a century:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...d_the_New_Deal

The role of the government only began to substantially expand once the 16th Amendment (income tax) was passed in 1913. Big federal entitlement programs did not exist until Roosevelt's presidency, and most of the regulatory agencies we think of as eternal were created by Nixon (EPA, OSHA, EEOC, etc.)

The name of our country is the "United States". That should tell you something.

That's like, your opinion man. not fact. this is what the supreme court decides. being a federalist is a theory, though some would treat it as gospel.

Dude, like, you're confused. Federalism is the movement for a *strong* national government.

[Jer]

Libertarians.

Sheeit. Are you guys trying to make Communists look rational?

Not that it matters. Even if the whole lot of you were dumped on an empty continent, within a generation the smart ones would have come to their senses and rebuilt a government with all the usual safety nets and provisions for the common good. Probably after a period of chaos and starvation, followed by warring factions, followed by a dictatorship.

Taking care of the libertarians is just one more thing the rest of us have to do in order to run a prosperous, healthy and secure society. *shrug* It's just like making sure that most people get a tolerable education and basic health care, so they can do something useful and don't run around murdering and stealing for lack of options and learning, and so they don't wander around dying on our streets and feeding the rats. Just another chore, like cleaning up after litterbugs.

[BLOOD SWEAT STEEL]

Why do you hate America, David?

[Spats]

(OK, we're sort of off topic here. As an aside, let me remind everyone that Cliff and likwid began this thread with a completely false allegation about Ron Paul.)
http://tetongravity.com/forums/showp...6&postcount=82

But that's not really the point isn't ? Ron Paul's or Brocktoon, or yours, stance on health care and taxes would be the same with a state-run, or county-run, taxes funded health care system. As I understand your position anyway.

That's not true. If you look back through my older posts, you can easily find several places where I advocate some form of national health care system as an alternative to what we have now. (The other possible alternative is going fully private. Either is more functional than our current broken system of socializing only emergency care.) See here, here, and here for starters.

I also believe that we have no chance of getting an effective one passed on a national level, because of Republicans in the Senate and because insurance companies own too much of the Democrats. (HMOs are a failed government creation, btw.) However, it would certainly be possible to pass one at a state level, particularly in a state with a ballot initiative process.

Ron Paul is very consistent in his principles. He believes that the federal government should not mandate health care choice, just like it should not mandate recreational drug laws. He *personally* opposes socialized health care, and chooses to treat patients for free or reduced fee rather than take Medicare. However, that doesn't mean a state cannot implement some degree of socialized medicine if it so chooses: California, for instance, already has a state disability fund.

PNWBrit: oops, good catch. California's population is between that of Poland and Spain, not France. However, I don't think that invalidates my point, which is that the United States is more comparable in size (it's twice as large), population (3/5 the people), and economy (our GDP is 90% of the EU's) to the entire EU than it is to any individual member state.

[Spats]

Sheeit. Are you guys trying to make Communists look rational?

I'm supporting immediate withdrawal from Iraq, removal of our troops from the over 120 countries they occupy around the globe, an end to the "War on Drugs", and an end to the military dictatorship powers asserted by the President, just for starters.

By supporting Clinton or Obama, you are supporting indefinite US presence in Iraq (watch the debate: neither would commit to getting out of Iraq by 2012!), continued US military/industrial hegemony around the world, over $20 billion dollars a year dedicated to finding and imprisoning non-violent drug users, continued suspension of habeas corpus, and so on.

Who's irrational?

[philippeR]

(OK, we're sort of off topic here. As an aside, let me remind everyone that Cliff and likwid began this thread with a completely false allegation about Ron Paul.)
http://tetongravity.com/forums/showp...6&postcount=82



That's not true. If you look back through my older posts, you can easily find several places where I advocate some form of national health care system as an alternative to what we have now. (The other possible alternative is going fully private. Either is more functional than our current broken system of socializing only emergency care.) See here, here, and here for starters.

I also believe that we have no chance of getting an effective one passed on a national level, because of Republicans in the Senate and because insurance companies own too much of the Democrats. (HMOs are a failed government creation, btw.) However, it would certainly be possible to pass one at a state level, particularly in a state with a ballot initiative process.

Ron Paul is very consistent in his principles. He believes that the federal government should not mandate health care choice, just like it should not mandate recreational drug laws. He *personally* opposes socialized health care, and chooses to treat patients for free or reduced fee rather than take Medicare. However, that doesn't mean a state cannot implement some degree of socialized medicine if it so chooses: California, for instance, already has a state disability fund.

PNWBrit: oops, good catch. California's population is between that of Poland and Spain, not France. However, I don't think that invalidates my point, which is that the United States is more comparable in size (it's twice as large), population (3/5 the people), and economy (our GDP is 90% of the EU's) to the entire EU than it is to any individual member state.

I stand corrected.

[PNWbrit]

PNWBrit: oops, good catch. California's population is between that of Poland and Spain, not France. However, I don't think that invalidates my point, which is that the United States is more comparable in size (it's twice as large), population (3/5 the people), and economy (our GDP is 90&#37; of the EU's) to the entire EU than it is to any individual member state.

Actually although it's similar it's still slightly smaller than Spain and Poland. If you can't get simple facts right why shouldn't I think you've got the more complex concepts wrong?

I'm really not sure what your point is, I don't think you do either. It does seem like you've bought into this ridiculous "New Libertarian" movement hook line and sinker. Big business everywhere is licking it's lips at the thought of sucking you dryer than taxes ever could.

However to progress the discussion. The relative sizes of the EU and USA have nothing to do with the concept, functions, creation and intent of either's form of govenrment or more importantly your misunderstanding of them.

[13]

WRONG! Please do a few seconds of research before saying things that are factually incorrect.

"Paul extended his small-government ideals to his personal life. As a doctor, he refused to accept government insurance such as Medicaid because, he said, "I thought that was one stop too far." If a patient couldn't afford treatment, "I just took care of them." As a lawmaker, he's chosen not to participate in the congressional pension program."
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...WS01/709300331

"During his medical career specializing in obstetrics/gynecology, he delivered more than 4,000 babies. He refused to accept payment by Medicare or Medicaid, preferring to not charge patients or to work out a cash payment.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar...3paulfacts.htm

Think about it: most of those 4,000 babies have been in his own congressional district. If he wasn't taking care of the people there, they wouldn't have re-elected him 10 times.

This thread is a bullshit low blow to someone who has done more work pro bono than either of you are likely to do in several lifetimes. I expect a retraction and an apology. How about it?

are you ron paul? if not, why are you asking for a retraction and apology?

[13]

i'd rather do pro-bono and make less $$ than deal with medicaid and medicare.

and then i might have to charge the richer patients more so that i can take care of my mom in her old age.

[Jer]

Who's irrational?

The whole lot of 'em. Throw Kucinich in your analysis for kicks. Then pick your poison.

The "Libertarians" I referred to are those who expressed such shortsightedly selfish tendencies in such poorly thought out one-liners that I'm tempted to conclude they must be mentally deficient.

You don't appear to be one of them.

Ron Paul might not be one of them, but he's a wingnut in so many other ways that it doesn't matter. Just 'cause you like some of his policies doesn't mean they're all good, nor does it mean the whole package is good in the balance.

Ron Paul as President would be a tragicomic disaster.

[spook]

what happened to brocktoon's little rant?

i wanted to hear his explanation of how private property rights help promote the general welfare.

he sounds like a constitutional expert!

[4matic]

4matic - just curious, how many pair of skis do you own?

5 pair skis. ten snowboards. 3 cars (2 with AWD) I know what your driving at but I think it's irrelevant.

[BLOOD SWEAT STEEL]

Not really, it just comes down to me deciding for you that since you can only use/ride/drive one at a time, you *need* to give the rest away so we all have the same amount.

Wait. What's this? No?

NO!??

You worked for them, you say? Pfft.

[Brocktoon]

As I understand your position anyway. That the feds, in DC, run the thing makes it more inflamatory.

But that's the basic idea of paying for other's problems that you refuse.

My question was more along the lines of : What's worthy of your tax $ ?
What would you consider as the common good ?
Brocktoon says : give me your checkbook and let me go solve some societal problems with it. What societal problem would you want to solve ?

My interpretation of the Federalism principle is that the central Federal Government should not misappropriate the role of the states. Massachusetts wants to socialize their healthcare, great! Get on it (and they did, and early reports are that it seems to be working ok). How a State Government should be run is completely different, in my opinion. The Constitution left all powers to the states except those specifically reserved for the Fed. I think a state should be much more actively involved in things like education, for example.

I do not reject the idea of paying for other people's problems. I reject having your money taken from you so that some third party can decide what problems they want to solve with your money. I believe in charity and donate to various causes - the ones that are important to me.

To answer your question, what do I think the Fed should pay for:
I think the Fed should defend the United States against foreign aggression, provide a comprehensive infrastructure for commerce and interchange, and ensure that the individual states honor their obligations under the Constitution.

[Brocktoon]

what happened to brocktoon's little rant?

i wanted to hear his explanation of how private property rights help promote the general welfare.

he sounds like a constitutional expert!

My little rant still exists, but I wrote it rashly and it did not convey my true thoughts on the matter it addressed. So, I deleted it. I intend to modify it to comport with my true beliefs and repost it (thought I yanked it before anyone would have seen it).

[spook]

My little rant still exists, but I wrote it rashly and it did not convey my true thoughts on the matter it addressed. So, I deleted it. I intend to modify it to comport with my true beliefs and repost it (thought I yanked it before anyone would have seen it).

don't tease me, man. tell me how private property promotes the general welfare. i can never hear it enough.

[Brocktoon]

don't tease me, man. tell me how private property promotes the general welfare. i can never hear it enough.

A'ight:

US Constitution...
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


How about that you selfish cocksucker.

You're quoting the Preamble? The preamble is a teleological statement, that's why it says "in order to" - it defines the purpose of the document as a whole. Do you see that collection of symbols that follows the preamble - go ahead, look, we'll wait. . .those are other words. Now turn the page over; see, more words! These words are arranged into a structure that bear meaning. So, the preamble does not set forth a basis of authority. Your argument would have more force if you'd referenced Section 8.

But, since you like it, let's go ahead and look at the Preable:

I note you bolded "establish Justice." So it's Just to compel me to pay for grandma. Hmmm. I think you need a Webster's dictionary. Don't know why you italicized "domestic Tranquility." Are you suggesting G'ma is going to riot if we don't buy her Plavix? And then you bolded "promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." You think the erosion of personal property rights promotes general welfare. How does taking the fruit of one person's labor and giving it to another "secure the Blessing's of Liberty" to anyone, let alone our posterity. The Fed owes $10 trillion! How is our posterity going to enjoy the Blessings of Liberty if they are born into intractable debt?

Medicare and Medicaid are part of a bloated entitlement system that is unsustainable. By deciding the Fed should go in debt to pay for current old people, what are we leaving to the current young people when they become old? It's easy to paint a sympathetic picture of sympathetic old lady. But, one day my four-year-old daughter will be sympathetic old lady. Why should we saddle her with debt to pay for the unsound policies of her great-grandmother's generation? Look around, even the most ardent supporters of these entitlements can't deny the projections of the GAO and others that we are on an unsustainable course.

It's a zero sum game and it's incumbent on us to take the long view. We can either take it on the chin now, or we can pass the bill on to our posterity. Goddamit, if only we hadn't set out to secure for them the Blessings of Liberty.

>break -break<

Spook, don't think this quite gets to your point. Protection of private property rights ensures general welfare because it provides a stable environment for commerce and prosperity. If someone breaks into your house and steals from you, we have legitimate civil and criminal processes in place to address this. Likewise, if someone lights your car on fire. That our legal system recognizes and protects your righteous claim to a valid ownership interest in your property is the very basis of general welfare.

Without property rights there is no commerce and without commerce there is no general welfare (remember, somebody has to make money before the Fed can come in and take it from them).

[stupendous man]

Without property rights there is no commerce and without commerce there is no general welfare (remember, somebody has to make money before the Fed can come in and take it from them).

You take your constitution and citizenship for granted my friend. Get this - there is no private property without the central government, not the other way around.

As to your preamble argument, you wanted a reference. The preamble sets the stage for why a central government was created. Protecting granny is the protecting the general welfare for 2 reasons- 1- as DW pointed out, if we let granny die b/c you want that portion of your payroll back, everyone ultimately suffers, especially those in society who most need help and could cause the whole society to collapse and 2- you will one day, odds are, be granny, or in a position that needs help. and who're you gonna call? I know, yourself, sure.

read up some and you will see that the entitlements programs are not heading the US to bankruptcy, it is the W tax cuts, subsidies for the oil companies, the warring, and the trade deficit caused by the inability of the US to keep its manufacturing and other jobs in the US, along with the costs of pollution/climate change/bloated health care and insurance industries. maybe this is the difference btw repubs and dems, the blame game. but maybe this just tears into your whole ethos, and so you reject it.

[spook]

A'ight:

Without property rights there is no commerce and without commerce there is no general welfare (remember, somebody has to make money before the Fed can come in and take it from them).

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE !!!!

COMMERCE!!!!!!

THANKS! I KNEW YOU WERE A REAL AMERICAN

[Tippster]

Maybe we should all stop paying Income tax. That'd show 'em!

I get your point Brock, but just like there are Corporate entitlement programs I wouldn't fund with my tax dollars there are Social entitlement programs that you would not. Until we all (the People) decide to overhaul our tax obligations and regress the function of the Federal Government to pre-FDR status then this discussion is moot.

Oh, let us not forget that the New Deal was in answer to the Great Depression - caused by bad business practices coupled with an intense drought... not caused by the Fed. Who got bailed out? Pretty much everyone. Common good indeed.

[Cliff Huckable]

not a dick, a libertarian. Don't confuse the two.

Excuse me while I whip out my hairsplitter.

[doughboyshredder]

I'm supporting immediate withdrawal from Iraq, removal of our troops from the over 120 countries they occupy around the globe, an end to the "War on Drugs", and an end to the military dictatorship powers asserted by the President, just for starters.

By supporting Clinton or Obama, you are supporting indefinite US presence in Iraq (watch the debate: neither would commit to getting out of Iraq by 2012!), continued US military/industrial hegemony around the world, over $20 billion dollars a year dedicated to finding and imprisoning non-violent drug users, continued suspension of habeas corpus, and so on.

Who's irrational?

quoted for truth.................

[Spats]

However to progress the discussion. The relative sizes of the EU and USA have nothing to do with the concept, functions, creation and intent of either's form of govenrment or more importantly your misunderstanding of them.

Am I the only one here who notices the delicious irony of a Brit telling an American how Americans should run their government? I seem to recall a conflict over this very issue back in 1775

Seriously: you've got the most Orwellian society in the world, with Gatsos and surveillance cameras on every corner, not to mention severe gun control laws and no Bill of Rights -- yet London, your capital, business center, and cultural center for the entire country, suffers more violent crime per capita than Detroit, our most violent city!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._by_crime_rate
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/to...3=0&sub=0&v=36

Given that, I don't think you get to tell us how to run our country.

Oh, let us not forget that the New Deal was in answer to the Great Depression - caused by bad business practices coupled with an intense drought... not caused by the Fed.

Your statement is factually wrong. The Federal Reserve absolutely caused the Great Depression, and economists of all schools recognize this. Here's Ben Bernanke apologizing to Milton Friedman:

"Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. [Note: Bernanke is now the head of the Federal Reserve.] I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again."
http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDD...08/default.htm

Ron Paul might not be one of them, but he's a wingnut in so many other ways that it doesn't matter.

Given your lack of substantive rebuttal to any of my points, especially when you are capable of whipping out plenty of facts and science to back up your global warming stance, I'm saddened, but not surprised, that you've retreated into calling names.

It's a natural reaction when confronted with the ugly fact that the Democrats have waffled themselves so far into neo-con centrist uselessness that a free-market Republican is substantially more progressive than they are.

(Still waiting for Cliff or likwid to acknowledge that the main premise of this thread is a falsehood.)

[greg]

Am I the only one here who notices the delicious irony of a Brit telling an American how Americans should run their government? I seem to recall a conflict over this very issue back in 1775

Seriously: you've got the most Orwellian society in the world, with Gatsos and surveillance cameras on every corner, not to mention severe gun control laws and no Bill of Rights -- yet London, your capital, business center, and cultural center for the entire country, suffers more violent crime per capita than Detroit, our most violent city!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._by_crime_rate
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/to...3=0&sub=0&v=36

Given that, I don't think you get to tell us how to run our country.

i sure didn&#180;t read the whole thread pretty much only your last post - so i might have missed something. but out of curiosity: how exactly do you compare those statistics? i don&#180;t find any figures being remotely comparable. but leaving everything i know about statistics and empiricism aside and trying to compare the violent crime rate of detroit to london - detroit&#180;s is 3 to 4 times higher than londons. also the overall crime rate seems 3 to 4 times higher although uk&#180;s statistics take fraud and forgery into account which us&#180; seems not to.

the figures you were looking at where those of the district/quater which is called city of london and referes to the city&#180;s limites dating back to the late early and high middle ages. this part of the city has a population of about 8.5 thousand people although millions of people work and pass through that area each day. it&#180;s the city&#180;s service and touristic center. and nobody can afford to live there - hence the incredibly low density despite all the crowd.

and now you are comparing the per capita crime rate of that area used for work and living by millions of people daily but a population of only 8500 people with the whole city of detroit?

if i would compare the statistics of the city london with a population of 7.5 million (called greater london) which has still a density about twice as high as the roughly 1million inhabitants counting city detroit i would have to come to the conclusion that london&#180;s crime rate is about 3-4 times lower than that of detroit and would rank somewhere between denver and colorado springs..

given that - i don&#180;t think you should tell anybody anything especially not how to vote.

but i&#180;m still glad you highlighted that passage otherwise i probably would not have taken notice.

edit: the actual reason why i replied to your post is.. it is extremely stupid to tell a brit that he is stupid because he is a brit. and in your case it is even embarrassing.