I just took a political science class. We were taught that the higher you go with education (ex. Phd, or a doctorate) the more liberal you become. This pretty much says republicans are stupid.
Paul will never get it...sadly. That being said, Republicans are boned.
Hello four more years of Obama.
On August 17 2011 01:36 Bacon-X wrote: I just took a political science class. We were taught that the higher you go with education (ex. Phd, or a doctorate) the more liberal you become. This pretty much says republicans are stupid.
And this is a joke right? While that first bit is true, I figured the most important thing you can take out of a political science class was "correlation does not make causation" but hey that's just me.
Oh also, I've taken 3 years of history and political science classes, does that add credibility to my statement such that it supersedes yours? In my opinion, no.
I'm incredibly moderate, but blanket statements like this drive me insane. "I just took a political science class." What does that matter? Yay, you've taken ONE class. I doubt Edmund Burke was stupid, and I doubt Francis Fukuyama can realistically be called stupid in any sort of absolute terms. (Yes, I recognize that they are conservatives, not Republicans, but the ideology is there as the basis for Republicanism.)
I have indeed becomes "more liberal" since I've come to college, but several of my conservative stances have hardened since then as well. A good student takes everything with a grain of salt. Professors have a political agenda too, as does everyone else.
On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote: I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/.
I'm not sure Obama "Failed us". He got a TERRIBLE term as president for reasons outside his control. He inherited an Economic crisis, two wars, and the most belligerent Republican party in decades. I don't think any president could have handled that well.
Oh yes he inherited 2 wars, big deal and he actually expanded the two wars and made it 6 wars now! Yeah he hasn't failed you. He inherited 6% unemployment and now he has 10%, oh yeah he hasn't failed you. He inherited the last weeks of the patriot act and he guess what? - EXPANDED IT. The patriot act was about to end and he pushed to get it extended. And remember he promised to end it? He promised to end the wars and is now in 6 wars, all without congress approval and has increased the troops in Afghanistan from 60.000 from Bush era, to 120.000.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria? I mean are you just trolling or are you serious?
Obama works for the same people Bush worked for, it doesn't matter if the president is republican or democrat as long as they are part of the establishment and until you people realize that you are going down as a country and are going to take the world with you in that black hole with all these endless wars and stopping the natural flow of oil so that oil prices are absurdly high until every country in the world is destroyed.
not to mention the possible wars with NK and Iran
First of all..Syria? We don't have troops in Syria. At least publicly. >.>
We've HAD troops in Yemen.
We AREN'T in NK and Iran. They have ALWAYS been a problem.
We've HAD troops in Pakistan.
We've left things to NATO in Libya.
We've drawn down in Iraq. We are going to draw down in Afghanistan.
No. We're not in 6 wars. Obama is doing everything in his power to stop them, but you do realize that you don't just pull our troops out immediately when you're stuck in the middle of conflict. Give the president some credit, his foreign policy is probably his best part right now.
Unemployment has decreased. He inherited 6% unemployment...okay, how about you check what happened after the markets exploded and we soared above double digit unemployment? That's dropped after a while, not increased. Again, give credit where credit is due and stop blatantly blowing up the issue and exaggerating it.
On August 17 2011 00:46 xDaunt wrote:
On August 17 2011 00:38 Zergneedsfood wrote:
On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote: I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/.
Obama's has kept a good deal of promises, much to my surprise.
On August 17 2011 00:36 xDaunt wrote:
On August 17 2011 00:30 On_Slaught wrote: He did this by stealing jobs from other states. The New York Times puts it better than me:
What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is “Well, duh.” The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs — which is, whatever Mr. Perry may say, what Perrynomics amounts to in practice — involves a fallacy of composition: every state can’t lure jobs away from every other state.
This is just stupid. First of all, economics and business development isn't a zero-sum game. Lowering taxes and reducing regulations lowers the cost of doing business generally, which lowers the cost of entry of into business, which, in turn, ENCOURAGES people to get into business, thereby creating new jobs. Second, reducing regulations and taxes on businesses on a national level will obviously stem the flow of businesses and jobs out of the US and maybe even attract some to come back. The NYT author clearly is too dumb to see that what works on an interstate level for obvious reasons would also work on an international level for the very same reasons.
Oh you know...I guess a nobel prize in economics makes you too dumb to understand interstate level economics. >.>
To be honest, your theory sounds awesome, but the economy doesn't always work in the ways prescribed in a text book. I'll be truthful and say that I don't like Krugman too much (Fareed Zakara <33333), so I won't debate you on what he writes, because I'm frankly a little tired of him too.
Nobel Prize be damned, Krugman's a dolt (besides, anyone who thinks that the Nobel prize can be taken seriously anymore only needs to look at the Nobel Peace Prize that Obama got). Obama and the democrats have basically implemented all of Krugman's recommended policies over the past couple year with nothing to show for it. The only difference is that Obama and the democrats didn't spend as much as Krugman would have wanted. So what's Krugman's solution now? Double down on spending! Sheer brilliance. With the colossal failure of these policies, there's going to be a referendum on the wisdom Keynsian spending in economic circles sooner rather than later.
Like I said, I don't really like Krugman either, but like my statement above, give credit where credit is due. Krugman's an obsessive Keynesian but he's not stupid enough to not understand basic economics.
Keynesian economics isn't just "massive spending", but I mean, if you want to just umbrella the concept into two words, I guess that's fine.
You still bomb Pakistan, you withdraw 20.000 troops from Iraq and send 40.000 to Afghanistan, then you put 10.000 mercenaries in Iraq. Do the math and you'll see that he has actually increased the military presence by 30.000 troops in just the last year!
What.
The unemployment rate is currently 9.2%, what do you mean he hasn't "saved" anything? Even if I buy that the reason why unemployment is decreasing is because people are becoming fat cats at home, you do realize that Obama had nothing to do with rising unemployment right?
The bubble burst and the financial crisis is what caused unemployment. Obama's acts of bailing out markets and companies (COUGH GM COUGH) saved a good portion of the economy. No matter how you look at it...it could've been worse, and while I disagree with a good portion of the stimulus, the GM bailout was one of the successes that have brought thousands of jobs back.
So seriously. Stop. You're not backing up your stuff with facts. At all.
Let's go back to your wars.
We've increased military presence because the LAST administration seriously screwed up by ignoring Afghanistan and pouring meaningless efforts into Iraq. We've drawn down in Iraq and now we're facing the REAL problem: the Taliban in Pakistan, and increased problems in Afghanistan. That was the RIGHT thing to do.
You seriously don't understand that when you are STUCK in conflict, you need to resolve the situation first before coming out of it. Once again, give credit where credit is due. The president has navigated these wars to the BEST of his abilities, and I doubt many could have done too much better.
I also love how you avoided Syria, Yemen, and Libya. Teehee.
On August 17 2011 01:11 thehitman wrote:
On August 17 2011 01:08 BlackFlag wrote:
On August 17 2011 01:04 thoradycus wrote:
On August 17 2011 00:56 Zergneedsfood wrote:
On August 17 2011 00:49 thoradycus wrote:
On August 17 2011 00:45 thehitman wrote:
On August 17 2011 00:36 Duban wrote: [quote] I'm not sure Obama "Failed us". He got a TERRIBLE term as president for reasons outside his control. He inherited an Economic crisis, two wars, and the most belligerent Republican party in decades. I don't think any president could have handled that well.
Oh yes he inherited 2 wars, big deal and he actually expanded the two wars and made it 6 wars now! Yeah he hasn't failed you. He inherited 6% unemployment and now he has 10%, oh yeah he hasn't failed you. He inherited the last weeks of the patriot act and he guess what? - EXPANDED IT. The patriot act was about to end and he pushed to get it extended. And remember he promised to end it? He promised to end the wars and is now in 6 wars, all without congress approval and has increased the troops in Afghanistan from 60.000 from Bush era, to 120.000.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria? I mean are you just trolling or are you serious?
Obama works for the same people Bush worked for, it doesn't matter if the president is republican or democrat as long as they are part of the establishment and until you people realize that you are going down as a country and are going to take the world with you in that black hole with all these endless wars and stopping the natural flow of oil so that oil prices are absurdly high until every country in the world is destroyed.
not to mention the possible wars with NK and Iran
First of all..Syria? We don't have troops in Syria.
We've HAD troops in Yemen.
We AREN'T in NK and Iran. They have ALWAYS been a problem.
We HAD troops in Pakistan.
We've left things to NATO in Libya.
We've drawn down in Iraq. We are going to draw down in Afghanistan.
No. We're not in 6 wars. Obama is doing everything in his power to stop them, but you do realize that you don't just pull our troops out immediately when you're stuck in the middle of conflict. Give the president some credit, his foreign policy is probably his best part right now.
Unemployment has decreased. He inherited 6% unemployment...okay, how about you check what happened after the markets exploded and we soared above double digit unemployment? That's dropped after a while, not increased. Again, give credit where credit is due and stop blatantly blowing up the issue and exaggerating it.
On August 17 2011 00:46 xDaunt wrote:
On August 17 2011 00:38 Zergneedsfood wrote:
On August 17 2011 00:33 Vore210 wrote: I feel sorry for the U.S that you have to choose between the president that failed you (though he was opposed at practically every turn), and one of the nuttiest political parties in the western world.
Well, good luck ;/.
Obama's has kept a good deal of promises, much to my surprise.
On August 17 2011 00:36 xDaunt wrote: [quote]
This is just stupid. First of all, economics and business development isn't a zero-sum game. Lowering taxes and reducing regulations lowers the cost of doing business generally, which lowers the cost of entry of into business, which, in turn, ENCOURAGES people to get into business, thereby creating new jobs. Second, reducing regulations and taxes on businesses on a national level will obviously stem the flow of businesses and jobs out of the US and maybe even attract some to come back. The NYT author clearly is too dumb to see that what works on an interstate level for obvious reasons would also work on an international level for the very same reasons.
Oh you know...I guess a nobel prize in economics makes you too dumb to understand interstate level economics. >.>
To be honest, your theory sounds awesome, but the economy doesn't always work in the ways prescribed in a text book. I'll be truthful and say that I don't like Krugman too much (Fareed Zakara <33333), so I won't debate you on what he writes, because I'm frankly a little tired of him too.
Nobel Prize be damned, Krugman's a dolt (besides, anyone who thinks that the Nobel prize can be taken seriously anymore only needs to look at the Nobel Peace Prize that Obama got). Obama and the democrats have basically implemented all of Krugman's recommended policies over the past couple year with nothing to show for it. The only difference is that Obama and the democrats didn't spend as much as Krugman would have wanted. So what's Krugman's solution now? Double down on spending! Sheer brilliance. With the colossal failure of these policies, there's going to be a referendum on the wisdom Keynsian spending in economic circles sooner rather than later.
Like I said, I don't really like Krugman either, but like my statement above, give credit where credit is due. Krugman's an obsessive Keynesian but he's not stupid enough to not understand basic economics.
Keynesian economics isn't just "massive spending", but I mean, if you want to just umbrella the concept into two words, I guess that's fine.
Not really 6 wars... but we are bombing yemen and pakistan any future military action by those 2 countries iran and nk will be dealt with by the US. NATO still means the US is involved...
If the USA would have cared a bit about the situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan would have to be had involved from day number 1, because Pakistan made the Taliban big. Pakistan was and probably is still the biggest supporter of the Taliban. Read up on the 30 years of wars in Afghanistan. From Soviet Intervention to the Civil War up to Taliban rule. In Retrospective, the Afghanistan-War was stupidly planned, very very very stupid and no concept except "bomb shit".
That is the point man. They don't fight terrorists there, they control the flow of oil, so that oil is so expensive that every country in the world is basically bankrupt. And who they gave the oil fields from Iraq and Afghanistan to and who is drilling there?
I'm pretty sure that your post made absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Look I don't care about Bush or Obama or Republicans or Democrats or Libertarians or anyone. What I care about is having finally a honest man take the presidency in the USA who is not corrupt, who doesn't work for the criminal corporations, who isn't an Emperor launching wars without congressional approval and who is sane enough to stop all this oil blocking which is the REAL cause for the world economic crisis.
And BTW buddy, bailing out the big banks with your own money, who then lend it to you at 15% interest rates is not a successful policy, especially not when those big banks reported record profits and the average people lost their jobs and the value of the dollar went down.
So what they did is the biggest scam in the history of the world giving 700 billion dollars to the big banks, then giving 5 trillions in secret that has now come out a month ago to other world banks and overall the federal reserve has in secret given out about 15 trillion dollars to big corporations and world mega banks.
I bet that is enough money to buy off half the politicians in the entire world.
You do realize Bailouts are getting paid off and they're not free money right? Wait lol, no you don't x_x -- and there's quite a bit of speculation in what you said. Conspiracy theory junk.
Clearly the work of the reptilians.
Give me 1 trillion in bailout and I then loan you money created out of thin air to you at 15% interest rate. Who do you think is the moron here? Me getting free money at 1% interest who I then loan out to the average people for 15%?
I mean don't you realize its a scam? Its the big banks getting almost free money and then putting the pressure for giving back those money on the consumer. Its a total scam, I don't understand how you don't see it.
But I know people don't believe me on these things that Rick Perry supports carbon taxes and works for bilderberg, etc..
Go to the 6th page and see the youtube videos at which Rick Perry admits to being a bilderberg member with another video as additional proof.
Ron Paul is basically the only option. Funny you talk about sanity OP. When the fiscal and monetary situation are both spiralling so far out of control that no one but Paul has the cojones to talk about the real radical solutions necessary
On August 16 2011 23:51 methematics wrote: Ya im gonna vote Ron Paul in the primaries 100%. How can you guys say hes for the top 2%, right now business is so in bed with the government its sickening. Just look at TARP as an example. Separating business from government is a huge plus for me. The personal issues im about 90% with him. Economic issues im 100% with him. Foreign policy im probly 90% with him. Austrian Economics FTW!
Big business is in bed with government. That's totally true. Do you know what they're advocating for once they climb between the sheets? They're asking for the exact policies Ron Paul wants as a matter of ideology. His motives are more pure, but the result is the same.
No the result is not the same at all. Having a more free economy does not mean an economy with no oversight or regulation. Paul wants to stream line the system and let the market actually determine the value of an asset. I think the biggest problem with people stating "Ron Paul is crazy, or that Ron Paul is just another Republican pandering to the rich" is ignorance. Free market capitalism is based off the idea of Supply and Demand but also upon the ideas of Risk and Reward. The biggest problem with our economy right now is that the Federal Reserve (run by people who are not elected and who are not answerable to the the people) has created a system of Reward and more Reward.
So that if a company is large enough and makes very bad decisions with their money there is no risk of failure because the federal reserve will just bail them out. This creates a situation where companies will purposefully act recklessly and buy assets with HUGE risk so that they can maximize profit. This then leads to our Boom and Bust economy of the past 60 years.
The whole problem lies in the Federal Reserve and fractional lending. As long as we have a system that is based not upon asset-ed financing but upon this ridiculous belief that the United States can not default on their loans we will continue to have this ever widening gap between the rich and the poor.
Thomas Jefferson once said that we should have a revolution once every 20 years to keep the government honest.
Ron Paul wants to start that revolution and Im behind him 100%
If you really want to learn how harmful the federal reserve is to the world economy, just look at this:
On August 17 2011 01:38 Klaca wrote: Ron Paul is basically the only option. Funny you talk about sanity OP. When the fiscal and monetary situation are both spiralling so far out of control that no one but Paul has the cojones to talk about the real radical solutions necessary
I feel like people like to attack straw men instead of Ron Paul himself. Ron Paul doesn't want to just suddenly turn off social security, food stamps, federal loans, etc. the moment he gets in office. There is a difference between the goals you have and how you get there. It's obviously a long process, but let's be honest here, it's the right thing to do. Nearly every single federal program (let me know if there are any that are an exception...) is BROKE right now. They all spend more than they take in. They are inefficient, and it would be better to move these programs into either the private sector, or at least into the states instead of the fed.
Is this line up a joke? If Bachmann actually won presidency the US would go back into the dark ages. Any American scientific research that is at all at odds with Bachmann's religion would probably be shut down because she's insane.
I agree with a few of Ron Paul's ideas (a rarity considering I find most conservative ideologies to be garbage), but he seems kinda crazy, but almost crazy enough that he would actually do some of the stuff he says, unlike most other candidates.
We'll just have to see how well Fox News advertises the Republican candidate this time around.
On August 17 2011 01:40 shinosai wrote: I feel like people like to attack straw men instead of Ron Paul himself. Ron Paul doesn't want to just suddenly turn off social security, food stamps, federal loans, etc. the moment he gets in office. There is a difference between the goals you have and how you get there. It's obviously a long process, but let's be honest here, it's the right thing to do. Nearly every single federal program (let me know if there are any that are an exception...) is BROKE right now. They all spend more than they take in. They are inefficient, and it would be better to move these programs into either the private sector, or at least into the states instead of the fed.
Actually, Ron Paul does want to turn these things off immediately. You know Rothbard's Big Red Button libertarian test? Right, this is what the ideology is about. Elimination.
Ron Paul is the only likeable one BECAUSE he doesn't act like a giant douche hammer. He hates government and thats fine with me. At least I know he won't lie to my face.
On August 16 2011 22:50 Candadar wrote: I don't know how anyone can vote for Bachmann. That bitch is crazy as hell.
Swine Flu also came up in the 70's under Carter -- a Democrat and came back up in 2010 under Obama. I'm not saying it's directly related, but coincidence?
I can give 500 more of these comedic gold quotes from her. Ranging from her saying the Revolution started in New Hampshire to her saying that Evolutionists are trying to overthrow the world to make a one-nation government to control us all.
I'm fine with Republicans, and even Republicans winning -- but fucking Christ not THIS one. I'd rather have Palin than this person.
To keep it relevant too so I don't get banned, here are some politically relevant bullshit quotes from her:
"Literally, if we took away the minimum wage—if conceivably it was gone—we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." —Michele Bachmann, 1/26/05, Jobs, Energy and Community Development Committee, testifying against SF 3, a bill to raise the MN minimum wage and advocating the elimination of the minimum wage altogether..
"Iran is the troublemaker trying to tip over apple carts all over Baghdad right now because they want America to pull out. And you know why? It’s because they’ve already decided, that they’re going to territory, they’re- they’re going to partition Iraq and half of Iraq, the western northern portion of Iraq is going to be called, the United, uh, uh, the, the uh, -oh, I’m sorry, I can’t remember the actual name of it now, but it’s going to be called, um, uh, the, the, uh, uh the Iraq State of Islam, something like that. And I-I’m sorry, I-I don’t have the official name, but it is meant to be the training ground for the terrorists. There’s already an agreement made; they’re going to get half of Iraq and that is going to be a –a terrorist free,-a terrorist safe haven zone." - February 9, 2007, interview with Larry Schumacher, St Cloud Times. Posted February 10, 2007
The first quote by Bachman has empirical economic justification. The employment level will in fact go up, but that might not necessarily be better for everybody for reasons of sticky wages, etc...
Her foreign policy quote is garbage however. Why can't my Tea Party members have both a reasonable economic policy as well as a nonidiotic foreign policy?
On August 16 2011 22:50 Candadar wrote: I don't know how anyone can vote for Bachmann. That bitch is crazy as hell.
Swine Flu also came up in the 70's under Carter -- a Democrat and came back up in 2010 under Obama. I'm not saying it's directly related, but coincidence?
I can give 500 more of these comedic gold quotes from her. Ranging from her saying the Revolution started in New Hampshire to her saying that Evolutionists are trying to overthrow the world to make a one-nation government to control us all.
I'm fine with Republicans, and even Republicans winning -- but fucking Christ not THIS one. I'd rather have Palin than this person.
To keep it relevant too so I don't get banned, here are some politically relevant bullshit quotes from her:
"Literally, if we took away the minimum wage—if conceivably it was gone—we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." —Michele Bachmann, 1/26/05, Jobs, Energy and Community Development Committee, testifying against SF 3, a bill to raise the MN minimum wage and advocating the elimination of the minimum wage altogether..
"Iran is the troublemaker trying to tip over apple carts all over Baghdad right now because they want America to pull out. And you know why? It’s because they’ve already decided, that they’re going to territory, they’re- they’re going to partition Iraq and half of Iraq, the western northern portion of Iraq is going to be called, the United, uh, uh, the, the uh, -oh, I’m sorry, I can’t remember the actual name of it now, but it’s going to be called, um, uh, the, the, uh, uh the Iraq State of Islam, something like that. And I-I’m sorry, I-I don’t have the official name, but it is meant to be the training ground for the terrorists. There’s already an agreement made; they’re going to get half of Iraq and that is going to be a –a terrorist free,-a terrorist safe haven zone." - February 9, 2007, interview with Larry Schumacher, St Cloud Times. Posted February 10, 2007
The first quote by Bachman has empirical economic justification. The employment level will in fact go up, but that might not necessarily be better for everybody for reasons of sticky wages, etc...
Her foreign policy quote is garbage however. Why can't my Tea Party members have both a reasonable economic policy as well as a nonidiotic foreign policy?
Because the only thing they agree on is the Economic portion xD
I think there is a huge difference between being smart and being educated. I like all the people that say they went to college and have so and so degree and took so and so classes then flaunt their Diploma around like its the Holy fucking grail. I'm not gonna name my credentials because I see no point in it. Everything is Opinions and everyone has their right to it.
OT: I hope Ron Paul gets the funding to make a good race for the presidency. Republicans and Democrats are in the business of just making sure they are in control instead of making things right in this country and I can see Ron Paul getting things done over anyone else.
On August 17 2011 01:36 Bacon-X wrote: I just took a political science class. We were taught that the higher you go with education (ex. Phd, or a doctorate) the more liberal you become. This pretty much says republicans are stupid.
It's my understanding that democrats pool from the poorly and highly educated alike, while the republicans pool from the middle. In addition the older someone gets, the more conservative they tend to vote.
This is all from 'stuff I've seen cited at some point or another in the last 5 years'.
Ron Paul is the only republican I could see myself voting for and the media is completely ignoring him. We should start a write in Campaign for Ron Paul possibly right here on TL. Ron Paul is the only candidate from either party that doesn't serve the corporate entities that currently own America. We need someone like Ron Paul to bring us back from the edge of another depression. The only other option for me than Paul would be any Democratic candidate including Hillary Clinton and the current Administration. Also wanted to throw in that I am from Alaska and while Palin is a nice lady she should under no circumstances be allowed to run our country. She didn't even prove that she could run my state Alaska correctly and quit after half her term. Thought Id take the time to do this. My little brother went to school with Levi Johnston the Palin Daughters Baby-daddy, and he sold heroin and oxycontin. While I cant prove it the kids mother was arrested for posession of drugs so...
On August 17 2011 01:36 Bacon-X wrote: I just took a political science class. We were taught that the higher you go with education (ex. Phd, or a doctorate) the more liberal you become. This pretty much says republicans are stupid.
It's my understanding that democrats pool from the poorly and highly educated alike, while the republicans pool from the middle. In addition the older someone gets, the more conservative they tend to vote.
This is all from 'stuff I've seen cited at some point or another in the last 5 years'.
What Bibdy is saying isn't true at all. A higher education makes it more likely that someone votes democratic, but undergoing an academic education doesn't make people more liberal or anything like that. Part of it has to do with the US definition of liberal also, for example, an academic education makes it much more likely that you adhere to the theory of evolution, that you are much more likely to be pro-choice and anti-gun.
However, in US terms, that makes you a liberal democrat, while in the rest of the world it's perfectly acceptable to be a fiscal conservative that is pro-choice, anti-gun and an evolutionist all at the same time.
As for older people becoming more 'republican' or 'conservative', it doesn't have as much to with that people become more conservative later it life. From both social and political science, people pretty much adhere to their political position after their 'formative' years, it's just that the issues and society change. What once was a progressive position becomes a slightly more conservative position over time.
On August 17 2011 01:40 shinosai wrote: I feel like people like to attack straw men instead of Ron Paul himself. Ron Paul doesn't want to just suddenly turn off social security, food stamps, federal loans, etc. the moment he gets in office. There is a difference between the goals you have and how you get there. It's obviously a long process, but let's be honest here, it's the right thing to do. Nearly every single federal program (let me know if there are any that are an exception...) is BROKE right now. They all spend more than they take in. They are inefficient, and it would be better to move these programs into either the private sector, or at least into the states instead of the fed.
Actually, Ron Paul does want to turn these things off immediately. You know Rothbard's Big Red Button libertarian test? Right, this is what the ideology is about. Elimination.
yea he wants to do it immediately, but like he has said, he wont because that would fuck over too many people. If he had the power he would do it so there's a slow transition into full elimination... it wouldn't be overnight jesus christ
EPT
