Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yea, he is all for the eliminating the governments ability to limit choices all right........except when it concerns women and their choice to carry a pregnancy or not.
I guess women are the only ones who don't get personal and individual choice in Ron Paul's version of small governmnent.
He will never get my vote. I will never vote for anyone who advocates overturning Roe v Wade.
Your a little late to the discussion.
Go back to page 3 or 4, and the video of him on The View.
Everybody keeps saying Ron Paul is a nutcase.
But after watching this video, I feel he makes a lot of sense when he says to end Marijuana Prohibition and defer regulation to the individual states.
He does not seem like a nutcase at all.
He seems quite intelligent and rational - and very interesting.
I am sure if he gets elected, those backing the Fed will have him killed immediately.
I don't think he is a nutcase for making such a case, but IF we do apply such, we need to remove many of the nanny laws that excuse people for their own indiscretion.
We do that, and I don't care what people do to themselves as surely there will be major repercussions for those who violate others while doing such.
That is not what I said, correct, the Fed passes most of the interest they make back to the treasury but the debt must be created in order to have currency issued.
With debt free currency we would issue currency directly from the Treasury without debt. If they did not make their bogus debt ceiling deal, theoretically we could have covered our expenses by issuing US Notes or coins as opposed increasing the debt. We could pay all spending with US Notes and our deficit would not have any corresponding debt. The worry would be the potential for inflation if spending went unchecked. But as it is if we continue to spend we could have inflation AND still owe the debt.
There is no debt with Federal Reserve notes, they buy treasuries already in circulation, which I have pointed out. If the US Government printed its own money it would have to buy treasuries too, in order to get the currency into circulation.
You must have missed Greenspan's comments on the matter.
"The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default"
Oh yeah, I forgot about this.
"The Federal Reserve banks have only a small share of the total national debt (about 7%). Therefore, only a small share of the interest on the debt goes to the Fed. Regardless, the Fed rebates that interest to the Treasury every year, so the debt held by the Fed carries no net interest obligation for the government. In addition, it is Congress, not the Federal Reserve, who is responsible for the federal budget and the national debt."
Except for when it comes to a woman's choice regarding her reproductive options, and you can't more personal and individual than that. In that case, Paul is for the gov't making the choice for all women.
So much for personal and individual choice....
No, that's not true.
What he says is that abortion is not a federal issue. It's a state issue.
Name one non-defense regulation the uber-wealthy likes?
And no, I'm not talking about corporate handouts such as Medicare Part D and Obamacare, nor am I talking about Tax Loopholes, Citizens United or Free Trade (which all 3 are the complete antithesis of regulation).
I mean regulations such as the EPA, FDA, Tariffs, USDA, FLSA, CRA, Glass-Steagall, etc.
Here is one the Price Anderson Act, it is a regulation that makes nuclear power plants pay a fee to the government, they love this fee, why? The act takes the majority of liability off the backs of the corporations and puts it on us the tax payers.
Regulations were created that limited the liability of banks, they only need to put up $1 dollar for every dollar they have at risk. Investment banks and insurance companies did not need any reserves for their CDS exposure, all written in detailed multi thousands of pages of regulations.
I take it you did not watch the Taleb video, it would have answered at lot of your questions. Why would a room full of world-wide financial and political elite balk at his call for a LACK of regulations as the solution. Their whole conference was about expanding regulations. Why is that?
Just like the other letters you mention, the reason the love regulations is the remove risk and liability.
The USDA is full of regulations and they all benefit Monsanto and harm us. Do a goggle search about the USDA meat report.
Your a little late to the discussion.
Go back to page 3 or 4, and the video of him on The View.
What I saw on that video was typical, anti-choice rhetoric. Joy mentions abortion and Paul automatically goes to aborting at 8 months.
As it is now, all women in America are treated equally when it comes to choice......why should a women be denied that right just because she happens to live in a state that bans it? Why should she have to travel out of state to obtain the sames rights other women have?
Whether it is state or federal, NO government entity should interfere with a woman's choice. Paul is just fine with state government taking that right away.
Ron Paul wants to overturn Roe v Wade and that video proves it.
As it is now, all women in the USA have choice......Paul wants to take away that choice, one state at a time......that is obvious.
Here is one the Price Anderson Act, it is a regulation that makes nuclear power plants pay a fee to the government, they love this fee, why? The act takes the majority of liability off the backs of the corporations and puts it on us the tax payers.
Regulations were created that limited the liability of banks, they only need to put up $1 dollar for every dollar they have at risk. Investment banks and insurance companies did not need any reserves for their CDS exposure, all written in detailed multi thousands of pages of regulations.
I take it you did not watch the Taleb video, it would have answered at lot of your questions. Why would a room full of world-wide financial and political elite balk at his call for a LACK of regulations as the solution. Their whole conference was about expanding regulations. Why is that?
Just like the other letters you mention, the reason the love regulations is the remove risk and liability.
The USDA is full of regulations and they all benefit Monsanto and harm us. Do a goggle search about the USDA meat report.
Price Anderson is yet another example of Corporate Welfare (not technically a regulation).
As for the rest of what you said, I see you're coming from the viewpoint that they'll just pass the liability onto the consumer or "the little guy." Well would you prefer we at least put up a fight against their greed (With the regulations we have now despite their imperfections) or just roll over and let them have their way with us (early 20th century society)?
There's also that little grey area you guys seem to forget that they can only pass so much of the liability onto the "little guy" until it chops into the demand for their products/services.
What I saw on that video was typical, anti-choice rhetoric. Joy mentions abortion and Paul automatically goes to aborting at 8 months.
As it is now, all women in America are treated equally when it comes to choice......why should a women be denied that right just because she happens to live in a state that bans it? Why should she have to travel out of state to obtain the sames rights other women have?
Whether it is state or federal, NO government entity should interfere with a woman's choice. Paul is just fine with state government taking that right away.
Ron Paul wants to overturn Roe v Wade and that video proves it.
As it is now, all women in the USA have choice......Paul wants to take away that choice one state at a time......that is obvious.
Believe it or not, States being in charge of their own government is probably the best way to live. The people of thats state get to decide how things run -- isn't that awesome?
If you end up living in a state where it's run in ways you totally disagree, well, there's 49 others. I'm sure one will be perfect for you. We don't HAVE to stay where we are.
Our country is way too big for one size fits all laws. I'm gay so clearly I'm an advocate for same sex marriage... but let's be honest here: The people of let's say, Mississippi aren't very fond of that .. whereas the people of New Hampshire aren't bothered by it.
EVERY state will have it's own views on these political and social issues. I see nothing wrong with that, and I see nothing BUT positive ones. California can finally become the government controlled state it wants to be. Texas can go ahead and shoot people first ask later, LOL.. ETC ETC ETC
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
