Metacomet
18th October 2011, 03:41
Possible? Hopeless.
Here's what was said.....
(First post is Ron Pauls budget plan)
2nd. (Person A) you should be friends with my husband. He LOVES Ron Paul and wants that pic you posted yesterday of him
3rd. (Me)
So he's going to eliminate tens of thousands of jobs, eliminate the department of education, cut the EPAs budget by a third, get rid of the consumer protection act, get rid of Indian services, lower corporate taxes, and sell federal land (say bye bye to national parks)
Yea that will make us an awesome place to live
4th. (me)
People on the one hand think Corporations are to powerful.
Then they counter this by wanting to vote for someone who will lower their taxes, privatize the FAA (brilliant, I'm sure the airlines would love to get hold of that), get rid of the EPA, the FDA, and basically every federal office.
How would corporations NOT essentially take over in that instance?
Then there is the effect on the economy all those laid off federal workers would have, all those people who lose their SNAP and food stamps (garbage picking maybe?), cant go to college because their would be no student loans (woo hoo, College is back as the privilege of the rich, or you can borrow from everyone's favorite Bank of America), and make Indian reservations even shittier hell holes then they already are.
Just want to be clear on what we want here.
Good thing he just has an internet cult of fanbois.
5th (Person B)
If I can respond to the concerns you raise, Lewis:
The only jobs its hurting are government jobs, and their pay comes from our taxes: so most of the jobs are just a burden on society and not really actually adding anything the way non-government jobs do. But the plan will allow much more jobs to be created: the reason unemployment is so high today is because of bad and corrupt governing which Paul's plan works to correct.
Education statistics have gone down since the Dept. of Ed. was formed, and eliminating it is a great idea. The Department only started in the 50's, and American education was just fine before without it.
Ron Paul is not an enemy of the environment, he just doesn't believe the EPA is effective. If we look around, I don't think there's much evidence that the EPA is any more successful than the Department of Education. And neither of them are constitutional.
Corporate taxes will be lowered, but so will all the enormous benefits they get from government; so he's just making it fair. And everyone else's taxes would be lowered as well. Money will be in the people's hands instead of the government bureaucracy. When government controls too much money, they just dole it out to corporations anyway.
The federal government doesn't need to own any land. Parks can be managed by states. There's no reason to tax you or me to maintain a park thousands of miles away that we will never see. Parks are a minor issue anyway, they are a fraction of the land the federal government owns.
The only thing you mentioned that raises a question for me is the Indian services, but I don't know what Paul's plan has to do with it, one way or another. Does he even mention that?
6th. (Original poster)
Ron Paul makes the most sense, and that's why I like him. I like finally having a politician who says things that make perfect sense, rather than dodging namby-pamby bullshit. This is not changing because someone needs to argue.
7th. (me)
1. Government workers are not all frakking leaches. They work just like everyone else. They do work that needs to be done.They spend money just like everyone else. Making them all unemployed sounds awesome right now. Really great idea. Kudos. I guess we don't need bridge inspectors, the mail (because UPS will deliver a letter to Hawaii for the cost of a stamp, sure), The Geological survey, The Indian health service, the Park service, all the people who process social security, and provide civilian services to the military. The FBI Yes, all utterly useless human beings in useless positions providing nothing at all to society.
2. The EPA. Drinking water standards. Emissions standards. Air quality standards indoors and out. Oil spill containment on shore and off shore. Fuel efficiency standards. Pesticide control and licensing, Energy star standards, Nuclear waste control, and protecting endangered species. But otherwise yes, a useless department. I'm sure BP and Monsanto will do all these things on their own out of charity. They have great track records of such things.
3. So the federal Education department has lowered educational standards. It might be the fact that now schools have to teach EVERYONE and hold everyone to the same standards? Including poor people, and disabled people? American education's problems are societal they aren't because there is some sort of federal standard. You realize a lot of states in the Obesity belt don't have the revenue to provide adequate schools and colleges? Where do you think the money comes from? Who do you think runs the student loan program?
4. What do you think happens to Indian services when they federal government gets reduced to Sub-Saharan African levels? They live on their $200 a month treaty checks, maybe combined with temp work at the bingo hall.
5. How are all non government jobs productive exactly? We have a huge sector of our economy devoted to moving invisible sums of wealth around the air, sounds like non productive work to me.
6. You honestly don't think corporations would benefit without government? Who would fill the void? They would have COMPLETE CONTROL over anything they wanted to do?
7. I'm not a constitutional fetishist, so I could give two craps that some 18th century rich men didn't want to explicitly state "THOUGH SHALL NOT INFRINGE ON THE RIGHT TO DUMP THE WASTE OF THINE ATOM SPLITTING INTO THE DRINKING WATER OF THYNE STATE OF NEW MEXICO!!"
8. I'm sure our international trade and relations would do awesome with no diplomats or state department
Here's what was said.....
(First post is Ron Pauls budget plan)
2nd. (Person A) you should be friends with my husband. He LOVES Ron Paul and wants that pic you posted yesterday of him
3rd. (Me)
So he's going to eliminate tens of thousands of jobs, eliminate the department of education, cut the EPAs budget by a third, get rid of the consumer protection act, get rid of Indian services, lower corporate taxes, and sell federal land (say bye bye to national parks)
Yea that will make us an awesome place to live
4th. (me)
People on the one hand think Corporations are to powerful.
Then they counter this by wanting to vote for someone who will lower their taxes, privatize the FAA (brilliant, I'm sure the airlines would love to get hold of that), get rid of the EPA, the FDA, and basically every federal office.
How would corporations NOT essentially take over in that instance?
Then there is the effect on the economy all those laid off federal workers would have, all those people who lose their SNAP and food stamps (garbage picking maybe?), cant go to college because their would be no student loans (woo hoo, College is back as the privilege of the rich, or you can borrow from everyone's favorite Bank of America), and make Indian reservations even shittier hell holes then they already are.
Just want to be clear on what we want here.
Good thing he just has an internet cult of fanbois.
5th (Person B)
If I can respond to the concerns you raise, Lewis:
The only jobs its hurting are government jobs, and their pay comes from our taxes: so most of the jobs are just a burden on society and not really actually adding anything the way non-government jobs do. But the plan will allow much more jobs to be created: the reason unemployment is so high today is because of bad and corrupt governing which Paul's plan works to correct.
Education statistics have gone down since the Dept. of Ed. was formed, and eliminating it is a great idea. The Department only started in the 50's, and American education was just fine before without it.
Ron Paul is not an enemy of the environment, he just doesn't believe the EPA is effective. If we look around, I don't think there's much evidence that the EPA is any more successful than the Department of Education. And neither of them are constitutional.
Corporate taxes will be lowered, but so will all the enormous benefits they get from government; so he's just making it fair. And everyone else's taxes would be lowered as well. Money will be in the people's hands instead of the government bureaucracy. When government controls too much money, they just dole it out to corporations anyway.
The federal government doesn't need to own any land. Parks can be managed by states. There's no reason to tax you or me to maintain a park thousands of miles away that we will never see. Parks are a minor issue anyway, they are a fraction of the land the federal government owns.
The only thing you mentioned that raises a question for me is the Indian services, but I don't know what Paul's plan has to do with it, one way or another. Does he even mention that?
6th. (Original poster)
Ron Paul makes the most sense, and that's why I like him. I like finally having a politician who says things that make perfect sense, rather than dodging namby-pamby bullshit. This is not changing because someone needs to argue.
7th. (me)
1. Government workers are not all frakking leaches. They work just like everyone else. They do work that needs to be done.They spend money just like everyone else. Making them all unemployed sounds awesome right now. Really great idea. Kudos. I guess we don't need bridge inspectors, the mail (because UPS will deliver a letter to Hawaii for the cost of a stamp, sure), The Geological survey, The Indian health service, the Park service, all the people who process social security, and provide civilian services to the military. The FBI Yes, all utterly useless human beings in useless positions providing nothing at all to society.
2. The EPA. Drinking water standards. Emissions standards. Air quality standards indoors and out. Oil spill containment on shore and off shore. Fuel efficiency standards. Pesticide control and licensing, Energy star standards, Nuclear waste control, and protecting endangered species. But otherwise yes, a useless department. I'm sure BP and Monsanto will do all these things on their own out of charity. They have great track records of such things.
3. So the federal Education department has lowered educational standards. It might be the fact that now schools have to teach EVERYONE and hold everyone to the same standards? Including poor people, and disabled people? American education's problems are societal they aren't because there is some sort of federal standard. You realize a lot of states in the Obesity belt don't have the revenue to provide adequate schools and colleges? Where do you think the money comes from? Who do you think runs the student loan program?
4. What do you think happens to Indian services when they federal government gets reduced to Sub-Saharan African levels? They live on their $200 a month treaty checks, maybe combined with temp work at the bingo hall.
5. How are all non government jobs productive exactly? We have a huge sector of our economy devoted to moving invisible sums of wealth around the air, sounds like non productive work to me.
6. You honestly don't think corporations would benefit without government? Who would fill the void? They would have COMPLETE CONTROL over anything they wanted to do?
7. I'm not a constitutional fetishist, so I could give two craps that some 18th century rich men didn't want to explicitly state "THOUGH SHALL NOT INFRINGE ON THE RIGHT TO DUMP THE WASTE OF THINE ATOM SPLITTING INTO THE DRINKING WATER OF THYNE STATE OF NEW MEXICO!!"
8. I'm sure our international trade and relations would do awesome with no diplomats or state department