I love them, and he could never abolish them, because Congress would never do so.
But technically they aren't a function of the Federal Govt.. they should be owned and operated at the State level.
out for the evening.. have a good one.
There are many state-operated parks. Some parks/monuments are so large, or important, they should be managed by national authorities. Take D.C.'s monuments for example. Plus anything that crosses state lines. Also look at something like the Grand Canyon: most people appreciate having the Feds chip in to maintain such a treasure.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Jan 10, 2012 - 2:07pm
Romulus wrote:
He believes in that which is specifically NOT delegated to the Federal govt, is deferred back to the states and the people... just like the Constitution says.
He believes in excise taxes, not income tax. Our country got along fine for over a 100 years w/o an income tax. We didn't always have an income tax, that's only after 1913, the same year the Federal Reserve came into power.
Actually, a good part of our problem (i.e. the economic depression that resulted from the worldwide economic upheaval of a few years ago) came from too many politicians on both sides of the aisle buying into the libertarian/Austrian notion that the economy is self-correcting and needs no regulation. Look at credit default swaps as a prime example; Brooksley Born struggled and failed to get these sorts of financial instruments regulated and subject to requirements for transparency and so on. CDSs and other poorly or unregulated investment instruments played a crucial role in the financial collapse. Under the guidance and lobbying of Greenspan, Wendy and Phil Gramm, and others, we experimented with a more unregulated, "hands off" approach to the economy, and we paid dearly for this experiment in lessaiz-faire economic policy. Now, libertarians and Austrian economics fans want us to double down on this terrible bet.
Glass Steagal was repealed thanks to who?
Stop with this Keynesian nonsense that you cant print money and spend your way out of debt into prosperity. Ask Japan how that's worked out.
Regulations are good - for the Federal Reserve and all the Banks that make it up. They get a free pass!
That is not anarchy. Anarchy is no government at all. Am I wrong, that he doesn't believe in taxing? Is there someplace in the Constitution that would provide funding for these things? Where does one draw the line? I know that he doesn't believe in federal funding for schools, or almost anything else.
He believes in that which is specifically NOT delegated to the Federal govt, is deferred back to the states and the people... just like the Constitution says.
He believes in excise taxes, not income tax. Our country got along fine for over a 100 years w/o an income tax. We didn't always have an income tax, that's only after 1913, the same year the Federal Reserve came into power.
And he certainly wouldn't do away with funding PBS or anything like that.. nor could he get that done.. Ron Paul wants to slay the real dragons, the military complex and the banking cartel known as the Fed. THAT is where our problems come from.
Actually, a good part of our problem (i.e. the economic depression that resulted from the worldwide economic upheaval of a few years ago) came from too many politicians on both sides of the aisle buying into the libertarian/Austrian notion that the economy is self-correcting and needs no regulation. Look at credit default swaps as a prime example; Brooksley Born struggled and failed to get these sorts of financial instruments regulated and subject to requirements for transparency and so on. CDSs and other poorly or unregulated investment instruments played a crucial role in the financial collapse. Under the guidance and lobbying of Greenspan, Wendy and Phil Gramm, and others, we experimented with a more unregulated, "hands off" approach to the economy, and we paid dearly for this experiment in lessaiz-faire economic policy. Now, libertarians and Austrian economics fans want us to double down on this terrible bet.
No, that is anarchy. He's not an anarchist.. he's a Constitutionialist.
That is not anarchy. Anarchy is no government at all. Am I wrong, that he doesn't believe in taxing? Is there someplace in the Constitution that would provide funding for these things? Where does one draw the line? I know that he doesn't believe in federal funding for schools, or almost anything else.
I disagree.. we still got the depression, lost our jobs and our houses while the ones who caused the problem got bailed out.
Ron Paul doesn't want Religion forced into your life either.. he does not advocate any force of that whatsoever. The rest of the GOP certainly does though. Ron Paul believes in leading by example - not force.
And he certainly wouldn't do away with funding PBS or anything like that.. nor could he get that done.. Ron Paul wants to slay the real dragons, the military complex and the banking cartel known as the Fed. THAT is where our problems come from.
You can't bomb and go to war with Iran and other countries and expect not to pay for it somehow. It wreaks havoc on the price of gas and the rest of the economy...
What I'm seeing on the corporate media is a real distortion of his message... while war and the NDAA is somehow something that is NOT dangerous! That is insanity to me.
There would be no public institutions, like libraries, museums, and parks, if we all followed Ron Paul's philosophy.
Like it or not, the bank bailouts saved us from financial catastrophe. A lot of folks may have wanted us to actually face that financial catastrophe, but there's no way in hell any leader is going to be the guy at the helm when that happens.
The rest of the Republicans have those terrifying views about Christianity in government... "Zero government interference in business — but total government interference in personal religion-based choices"
Ron Paul has some great ideas, I do like his character, but leaving our country to the free market would result in destruction of the environment, the arts, social safety nets, and really all things that make our society civil.
As for war and the crazy military court bullsh*t, I hate it with all my being. But I'm not going to throw away civility with the bath water. or something.
I disagree.. we still got the depression, lost our jobs and our houses while the ones who caused the problem got bailed out.
Ron Paul doesn't want Religion forced into your life either.. he does not advocate any force of that whatsoever. The rest of the GOP certainly does though. Ron Paul believes in leading by example - not force.
And he certainly wouldn't do away with funding PBS or anything like that.. nor could he get that done.. Ron Paul wants to slay the real dragons, the military complex and the banking cartel known as the Fed. THAT is where our problems come from.
You can't bomb and go to war with Iran and other countries and expect not to pay for it somehow. It wreaks havoc on the price of gas and the rest of the economy...
What I'm seeing on the corporate media is a real distortion of his message... while war and the NDAA is somehow something that is NOT dangerous! That is insanity to me.
Like it or not, the bank bailouts saved us from financial catastrophe. A lot of folks may have wanted us to actually face that financial catastrophe, but there's no way in hell any leader is going to be the guy at the helm when that happens.
The rest of the Republicans have those terrifying views about Christianity in government... "Zero government interference in business — but total government interference in personal religion-based choices"
Ron Paul has some great ideas, I do like his character, but leaving our country to the free market would result in destruction of the environment, the arts, social safety nets, and really all things that make our society civil.
As for war and the crazy military court bullsh*t, I hate it with all my being. But I'm not going to throw away civility with the bath water. or something.
I'm sorry to hear this.. he supports NDAA, bank bailouts, and bombing Iran...
so which is worse, that or free market?
But yes, if you like Obama, I can see why you'd like him. There's no difference.
Like it or not, the bank bailouts saved us from financial catastrophe. A lot of folks may have wanted us to actually face that financial catastrophe, but there's no way in hell any leader is going to be the guy at the helm when that happens.
The rest of the Republicans have those terrifying views about Christianity in government... "Zero government interference in business — but total government interference in personal religion-based choices"
Ron Paul has some great ideas, I do like his character, but leaving our country to the free market would result in destruction of the environment, the arts, social safety nets, and really all things that make our society civil.
As for war and the crazy military court bullsh*t, I hate it with all my being. But I'm not going to throw away civility with the bath water. or something.
For the record, I decided to cast a vote for sanity: Jon Huntsman.
I wanted to vote for Ron Paul as an anti-war vote, but he is too trusting that the free market and corporations would do something akin to The Right Thing if just given a chance.
I won't get my wish for a reasonable, thoughtful contest for the presidency... but I can try.
I'm sorry to hear this.. he supports NDAA, bank bailouts, and bombing Iran...
so which is worse, that or free market?
But yes, if you like Obama, I can see why you'd like him. There's no difference.
Location: Blinding You With Library Science! Gender:
Posted:
Jan 10, 2012 - 10:24am
LordBaltimore wrote:
Sure, no sweat.
And I'd like to add that Ron Paul is probably the most sincere candidate that I've ever seen. When he says he's antiwar, he means he's anti-friggin-war. Unlike Barack "I'm antiwar only for the election campaign, and I give a pro-war speech during my Nobel peace prize address" Obama.
I cannot believe that someone who holds himself out as a Libertarian but would deny reproductive rights to approximately 50% of the population is truly sincere - except in his desire to control.
For the record, I decided to cast a vote for sanity: Jon Huntsman.
I wanted to vote for Ron Paul as an anti-war vote, but he is too trusting that the free market and corporations would do something akin to The Right Thing if just given a chance.
I won't get my wish for a reasonable, thoughtful contest for the presidency... but I can try.
