EPTWhy do you prefer Ron Paul? (just want to know, as a democrat)
I'm just tired of trying to find opinions on the actual candidates and seeing walls of texts regarding republican theory in general
Republican nominations - Page 97
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
Why do you prefer Ron Paul? (just want to know, as a democrat) I'm just tired of trying to find opinions on the actual candidates and seeing walls of texts regarding republican theory in general | ||
|
AcuWill
United States281 Posts
On September 19 2011 13:16 Kiarip wrote: quit trolling... i said commodities not just gold and silver. and don't give me that most economists garbage... my family lives a pretty frugal lifestyle, and the inflation is way more than 2-3%... We can see it in the friggin bank accounts when comparing how much money we save at the end of each year. The necessities have gone up in price way more than 2-3 % per year... commodities in general don't change in value. Look at all the commodities, they have all been growing along side of gold, and silver. I wouldn't believe this stuff if I didn't feel it having an impact on my everyday life. Wheat in september of 2010 was 270. Now it's 320... that's over 15% increase in cost. crude oil was 76... now it's 100 commodity food price index was 150, now it's 180 soy beans were 380, now they're 500... yes, why don't you tell me what the real rate of inflation is in this country. Please enlighten all of us how the real inflation is only 2-3%, and those numbers are NOT reverse engineered by the government using Hedonic regression. Yep. Also, funny how the largest rate of growth in US history occurred in a DEFLATIONARY period in the late 1800s. The concept that growth is spurred by a "healthy dose of small inflation" is completely ludicrous. Growth is spurred by SAVINGS. Savings leads to credit. Credit leads to lending with leads to growth. Of course, this works best in a free market and sound money. Of course, one will not learn this in high school economics and college courses of any level. The only teaching there are Keynesian BS where the theory has failed in practice time and again (ie. that deflationary periods lead to recession and inflationary leads to growth; this has been hilarious since the late 1800s, 1970s and lolololololol the inflationary recession of now) | ||
|
AcuWill
United States281 Posts
On September 19 2011 13:23 darthfoley wrote: Why do you prefer Ron Paul? (just want to know, as a democrat) I'm just tired of trying to find opinions on the actual candidates and seeing walls of texts regarding republican theory in general Wants to return all troops home (not just from the Middle east, but all the hundreds of bases around the world). No more of these wars against a concept. Wants to limit Federal government to Constitutionally defined limits. Considers the role of government to be to maintain liberty of the individual, not take it. Wants sound money and to abolish the Federal Reserve. Wants government to stop policing morality. Wants to legalize illegal drugs as he considers the "war on drugs" to do nothing but create crime and a waste of money. Basically, he considers the decisions a person does that does not harm others their own, and the government has no business regulating them in any manner. Oh, and he has been saying this since the 1970s and has the voting record to prove it. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 19 2011 13:23 darthfoley wrote: Why do you prefer Ron Paul? (just want to know, as a democrat) I'm just tired of trying to find opinions on the actual candidates and seeing walls of texts regarding republican theory in general Most of the posters on TL and in this thread aren't republicans (and are more likely to be hostile towards conservatives/republicans in general), which is why it's difficult to find posts about the candidates. The next primary debate is this Thursday on Fox News (I think YouTube/Google may be streaming it as well). You'll see more comments about the candidates then. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On September 19 2011 13:50 xDaunt wrote: Most of the posters on TL and in this thread aren't republicans (and are more likely to be hostile towards conservatives/republicans in general), which is why it's difficult to find posts about the candidates. The next primary debate is this Thursday on Fox News (I think YouTube/Google may be streaming it as well). You'll see more comments about the candidates then. Traditional Republican stances on government I can get behind, I can't support almost anything the party does now. It doesn't even remotely resemble the organization it once was. I mourn the lost days of Goldwater Republicans. | ||
|
nukeazerg
United States168 Posts
On September 19 2011 14:08 Whitewing wrote: Traditional Republican stances on government I can get behind, I can't support almost anything the party does now. It doesn't even remotely resemble the organization it once was. I mourn the lost days of Goldwater Republicans. Yep it would be cool to see goldwater as a candidate today. He would fight to repeal medicare, medicaid, and obamacare. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-25/usda-retail-food-inflation-forecasts-for-2011-text-.html There's some info about food inflation from May, although many predict that prices will fall now that they fear another dip into a recession. | ||
|
yeint
Estonia2329 Posts
But in actuality, the free market sucks ass at doing certain things. The healthcare system in the US is a horrible mess of inefficiency and profiteering by middlemen. Why? Because of the massive amount of people without health insurance. Contrary to what some of the more vile rhetoric (on both sides) says, these people do not go untreated. They just get all their medical care at ERs. Emergency Room medicine is by far the most expensive avenue of treatment, and they don't just leave people to die. They treat them, and they bill them. The uninsured obviously cannot pay, so they declare bankruptcy, and the caregiver eats the cost, driving up prices for actually insured people. Mandatory health insurance, subsidized by the government out of taxes for those who cannot afford it would end up costing far less, since these people could receive proper, efficient medical care. Ailments that can be alleviated or even cured with proper preventative care would never get to acute, life-threatening stages where people need to be rushed to operating rooms for expensive surgeries. The costs would go down for everyone. Healthcare is where the free market fails abysmally, unless you literally leave the uninsured outside the hospital to die of a burst appendix or a gushing headwound. Even a partial government takeover of health insurance would work wonders. There would literally be no downsides whatsoever - the increase in expenditure would be more than made up for by an overall decrease in cost of healthcare. But even though I am at my core a pretty strong supporter of many libertarian values, I think European-style fully socialized healthcare is preferable. Why? Because the privatized health insurance model favors neither the patient nor the doctor. It favors the insurance company. It is a colossally terrible idea to allow for-profit companies to decide the level of care given. Your cancer is too expensive and would hurt the bottom line? Pay out of pocket or die. Your child was born with congenital heart disease? Better not lose your job, because a new insurance plan would not cover your child. This is abjectly idiotic. The United States was founded on the self-evident truth that every person has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't think taxes should pay welfare for able-bodied people out of jobs. I don't think taxes should prop up the arts, and I certainly don't think taxes should subsidize businesses. But the government should rightly provide everyone with these three basic human rights - a free economy where people are hindered neither by government edict nor predatory monopolies, a justice system that both provides as well as defends personal liberty, and an egalitarian healthcare system that keeps you alive to take your opportunities. The fact that so many families faced with horrific illnesses are further burdened with a very real risk of financial ruin is just disgusting, especially since the system only serves the interests of insurers. The belief that the free market works better for everything is just not true. If you believe that, you are a dogmatist, not a rational person. But it is not an either-or situation. The free market works wonderfully most of the time. It is far better than the government in the vast majority of human endeavors. As to these candidates, I'd vote for Romney. Paul isn't batshit insane, and I appreciate his candor, but he's a rabid ideologue. I want pragmatists in charge. | ||
|
dOofuS
United States342 Posts
On September 19 2011 16:02 yeint wrote: I once drank the Goldwater kool-aid. Libertarianism and small government sounds so sensible. But in actuality, the free market sucks ass at doing certain things. The healthcare system in the US is a horrible mess of inefficiency and profiteering by middlemen. Why? Because of the massive amount of people without health insurance. Contrary to what some of the more vile rhetoric (on both sides) says, these people do not go untreated. They just get all their medical care at ERs. Emergency Room medicine is by far the most expensive avenue of treatment, and they don't just leave people to die. They treat them, and they bill them. The uninsured obviously cannot pay, so they declare bankruptcy, and the caregiver eats the cost, driving up prices for actually insured people. Mandatory health insurance, subsidized by the government out of taxes for those who cannot afford it would end up costing far less, since these people could receive proper, efficient medical care. Ailments that can be alleviated or even cured with proper preventative care would never get to acute, life-threatening stages where people need to be rushed to operating rooms for expensive surgeries. The costs would go down for everyone. Healthcare is where the free market fails abysmally, unless you literally leave the uninsured outside the hospital to die of a burst appendix or a gushing headwound. Even a partial government takeover of health insurance would work wonders. There would literally be no downsides whatsoever - the increase in expenditure would be more than made up for by an overall decrease in cost of healthcare. But even though I am at my core a pretty strong supporter of many libertarian values, I think European-style fully socialized healthcare is preferable. Why? Because the privatized health insurance model favors neither the patient nor the doctor. It favors the insurance company. It is a colossally terrible idea to allow for-profit companies to decide the level of care given. Your cancer is too expensive and would hurt the bottom line? Pay out of pocket or die. Your child was born with congenital heart disease? Better not lose your job, because a new insurance plan would not cover your child. This is abjectly idiotic. The United States was founded on the self-evident truth that every person has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't think taxes should pay welfare for able-bodied people out of jobs. I don't think taxes should prop up the arts, and I certainly don't think taxes should subsidize businesses. But the government should rightly provide everyone with these three basic human rights - a free economy where people are hindered neither by government edict nor predatory monopolies, a justice system that both provides as well as defends personal liberty, and an egalitarian healthcare system that keeps you alive to take your opportunities. The fact that so many families faced with horrific illnesses are further burdened with a very real risk of financial ruin is just disgusting, especially since the system only serves the interests of insurers. The belief that the free market works better for everything is just not true. If you believe that, you are a dogmatist, not a rational person. But it is not an either-or situation. The free market works wonderfully most of the time. It is far better than the government in the vast majority of human endeavors. As to these candidates, I'd vote for Romney. Paul isn't batshit insane, and I appreciate his candor, but he's a rabid ideologue. I want pragmatists in charge. You say this as if our current health care system was actually enjoying a free market. For more about the candidates that everyone seems to want, here's a video of Ron Paul predicting what we're currently enjoying: | ||
|
yeint
Estonia2329 Posts
You say this as if our current health care system was actually enjoying a free market. How does that in any way respond to what I said? Health care costs are not increased by Medicare and Medicaid. Health care costs are not increased by military health insurance either. They actually reduce health care costs because uninsured people still get treated, just really inefficiently and wastefully. Those programs increase the tax burden, obviously, but that is simply a matter of where the money comes from. The total money spent is significantly lower thanks to these programs. Socialized health care in most countries does not mean government run hospitals. Hospitals can be private enterprises. It's primary health insurance that's taken out of private hands (although private health insurance does exist for non-vital expenses like private rooms with TVs and the like). The current health care system is not making use of market forces, because market forces necessarily drive up profit. If healthcare was a two-party interaction between doctors and patients, then market forces would work to provide the best healthcare for the most people at the most competitive price. But with private health insurance, market forces work to provide the bare minimum to the least people, paying out as little as possible while collecting premiums from as many people as possible. Healthcare is not a business of treating people, healthcare is a business of not treating people if at all possible. Meanwhile, actual healthcare providers are forced to charge more and more because they treat more and more insolvent people who never pay bills. It is quite literally the most inefficient system in the world, and that is because of the idea that private sector solutions are always better. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On September 19 2011 15:44 aksfjh wrote: Well, it seems economic theory in the GOP is of the same basis as their science approach. A bunch of "bananas fit in our hands!" logic, without a lot of empirical evidence to back it up. You've already attached your arguments to personal experience and used it as an overriding factor, which detaches it from any rational conversation. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-25/usda-retail-food-inflation-forecasts-for-2011-text-.html There's some info about food inflation from May, although many predict that prices will fall now that they fear another dip into a recession. Are you serious? I attached my person experience because you're trolling. Look at the numbers. there's roughly 12 to 25 % increases in prices of all commodities... soy beans went from 380 to 500... and you're saying inflation is estimated to be 3-4 %? are you saying the soy beans got 25% better? or there's somehow way less of them? Of course the USDA is gonna say price increases will be calculated to a 3-4 % increase... they're part of the government, and they calculate that using the same broken logic that they use to calculate the CPI. Look at the market prices and stop spouting bullshit. Past year: Commodity Agricultural Raw Materials Index is up 14ish percent Commodity Beverage Price Index is up 11ish percent Commodity Price Index is up 28 percent Commodity Fuel (energy) Index is up 34 percent Commodity Food and Beverage Price Index is up 19.5 percent Commodity Food Price Index is up 20 percent Commodity Industrial Inputs Price Index is up 19 percent Commodity Metals Price Index is up 17.5 percent Commodity Non-Fuel Price Index is up 19.25 percent Crude Oil (petroleum), Price index is up 33 percent Barley is up 28 percent The fucking corn that we produce here in America is up... 77 percent.... please tell me how the inflation is only 4%... please | ||
|
aristarchus
United States652 Posts
On September 19 2011 23:21 Kiarip wrote: Are you serious? I attached my person experience because you're trolling. Look at the numbers. there's roughly 12 to 25 % increases in prices of all commodities... soy beans went from 380 to 500... and you're saying inflation is estimated to be 3-4 %? are you saying the soy beans got 25% better? or there's somehow way less of them? Of course the USDA is gonna say price increases will be calculated to a 3-4 % increase... they're part of the government, and they calculate that using the same broken logic that they use to calculate the CPI. Look at the market prices and stop spouting bullshit. Past year: Commodity Agricultural Raw Materials Index is up 14ish percent Commodity Beverage Price Index is up 11ish percent Commodity Price Index is up 28 percent Commodity Fuel (energy) Index is up 34 percent Commodity Food and Beverage Price Index is up 19.5 percent Commodity Food Price Index is up 20 percent Commodity Industrial Inputs Price Index is up 19 percent Commodity Metals Price Index is up 17.5 percent Commodity Non-Fuel Price Index is up 19.25 percent Crude Oil (petroleum), Price index is up 33 percent Barley is up 28 percent The fucking corn that we produce here in America is up... 77 percent.... please tell me how the inflation is only 4%... please You're citing commodity prices... When people buy food at the grocery store or a restaurant, a lot of the cost they're paying for is employee pay, property rental, electricity and refrigeration, etc. Those things have not been going up. (In fact, property rental went down a lot...) So unless you buy all your goods from factories and have truckloads of them delivered to your house... the price you pay hasn't actually gone up that much. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
When Ronald Reagan ran for re-election in 1984, his slogan was "Morning in America." For Barack Obama, it's more like midnight in a coal mine. The sputtering economy is about to stall out, unemployment is high, his jobs program may not pass, foreclosures are rampant and the poor guy can't even sneak a cigarette. His approval rating is at its lowest level ever. His party just lost two House elections — one in a district it had held for 88 consecutive years. He's staked his future on the jobs bill, which most Americans don't think would work. The vultures are starting to circle. Former White House spokesman Bill Burton said that unless Obama can rally the Democratic base, which is disillusioned with him, "it's going to be impossible for the president to win." Democratic consultant James Carville had one word of advice for Obama: "Panic." But there is good news for the president. I checked the Constitution, and he is under no compulsion to run for re-election. He can scrap the campaign, bag the fundraising calls and never watch another Republican debate as long as he's willing to vacate the premises by Jan. 20, 2013. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/ct-oped-0918-chapman-20110918,0,5039308.story | ||
|
aristarchus
United States652 Posts
On September 20 2011 01:09 xDaunt wrote: Sheesh, you know it's bad for Obama when his hometown newspaper is throwing him under the bus. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/ct-oped-0918-chapman-20110918,0,5039308.story Uhh... the Chicago Tribune has always had a conservative editorial page. They endorsed Bush in 2004, for example. There have been exceptions, but they almost always endorse Republicans. Yes, in 2008, when the Republican party was extremely unpopular almost everywhere, and the hugely popular Democratic candidate was moderate and from their city, they endorsed a Democrat. Now that we've gone back to a roughly normal 50-50 type split nationally, they're doing what they've always done... Obama hasn't lost support in Chicago, and he will carry Illiinois extremely easily. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 20 2011 01:18 aristarchus wrote: Uhh... the Chicago Tribune has always had a conservative editorial page. They endorsed Bush in 2004, for example. There have been exceptions, but they almost always endorse Republicans. Yes, in 2008, when the Republican party was extremely unpopular almost everywhere, and the hugely popular Democratic candidate was moderate and from their city, they endorsed a Democrat. Now that we've gone back to a roughly normal 50-50 type split nationally, they're doing what they've always done... Obama hasn't lost support in Chicago, and he will carry Illiinois extremely easily. I don't see how there's anything "conservative" about the article. The author all but comes out with an endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president. I'm not sure that I'd take it for granted that Obama will carry Illinois "easily." Did anyone think that a republican would win Anthony Weiner's seat four months ago when Weiner resigned? I don't think so, but that's exactly what happened. The smart bet is that Obama will carry Illinois, but the fact remains that many traditional democrat strongholds aren't safe right now. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On September 19 2011 13:34 AcuWill wrote: Also, funny how the largest rate of growth in US history occurred in a DEFLATIONARY period in the late 1800s. The concept that growth is spurred by a "healthy dose of small inflation" is completely ludicrous. Growth is spurred by SAVINGS. Savings leads to credit. Credit leads to lending with leads to growth. ) The best quarter-century of growth in the US was 1949-73, not the late 1800s. Now I'm sure by some other metric (perhaps best year or best decade?) you can make the argument for some time in the 1800s. But for shorter timeframes, I'm more likely to view something like the best single year on record as a statistical outlier rather than concrete evidence that some handpicked factor is a key to economic growth. Businesses are all saving their profits now; that's the problem. Economic growth is driven by consumption. Some savings is good, but only up to a point. As an obvious example, how strong would the economy be if everybody simply put 100% of their income into a safe in their home? Even your own theory contradicts the argument you're trying to make, since you say that borrowing (the opposite of saving) leads to growth. Academic economics isn't a conspiracy any more that academic biology or academic psychology. Theories are based on some standard of evidence and the peer review system, which while not perfect is certainly better than most/all competing standards. Besides that, if you look you'll find a host of free market support within the field; you just won't find unflinching support for a political party or ideology, which sadly is what I think a lot of people dabble in political economics for. | ||
|
LeibSaiLeib
173 Posts
EDIT ONE of the main reasons! | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On September 20 2011 03:22 LeibSaiLeib wrote: just to correct few people i read, main reason for resent food price increase in USA is biofuel. Biofuel as it is now has completely failed, dunno why USA uses 40% of its corn for it.... Isn't there also some kind of worldwide crop shortage going on? Or is that over now? I recall reading about that last year, and it's been a pretty tough year at least in the US for scorching temperatures and drought. Although it isn't a perfect measure, I give the federal statisticians some credit when they're calculating inflation and whatnot. While some prices are rising, others are rapidly deflating. What would a laptop with 500 GB HD, 8 GB RAM, quad core CPU cost in 2001? And today? Or what if I wanted a cell phone that had 64 GB memory and streaming web video in 2001? And today? Food and natural resources are probably prone to the most inflation (even without changes in our currency, just the fact that billions of people in Asia are seeing their nations become more prosperous and developed means that demand for these things is soaring), while more tech-related products are probably deflating in price a lot more than their inputs into the inflation formulas say, since we don't account for increases in quality. So when I see a list of food/resource price changes, I know that those are going to show way more inflation than is occurring in aggregate, even if aggregate inflation was being calculated perfectly. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Imagine he wins the nomination then goes back to being a moderate, holy shit. | ||
|
LeibSaiLeib
173 Posts
On September 20 2011 03:34 Signet wrote: Isn't there also some kind of worldwide crop shortage going on? Or is that over now? I recall reading about that last year, and it's been a pretty tough year at least in the US for scorching temperatures and drought. Although it isn't a perfect measure, I give the federal statisticians some credit when they're calculating inflation and whatnot. While some prices are rising, others are rapidly deflating. What would a laptop with 500 GB HD, 8 GB RAM, quad core CPU cost in 2001? And today? Or what if I wanted a cell phone that had 64 GB memory and streaming web video in 2001? And today? Food and natural resources are probably prone to the most inflation (even without changes in our currency, just the fact that billions of people in Asia are seeing their nations become more prosperous and developed means that demand for these things is soaring), while more tech-related products are probably deflating in price a lot more than their inputs into the inflation formulas say, since we don't account for increases in quality. So when I see a list of food/resource price changes, I know that those are going to show way more inflation than is occurring in aggregate, even if aggregate inflation was being calculated perfectly. First things first, the statistics and numbers only show money sequens, wich has little to do with reality (human happiness). Dont know much about USA economycs, thats why i just sayd the one fact, but one interesting fact thou about the inflation that i know. China holds trilions of dollars in EU and USA to keep the inflation in bay, to keep the china currency cheap so the rich countrys (read corporations, countrys play little roll in that in modern times of corporate empires) would invest in there. If China would decide and say fuck it, and take the investments away. Only then you see massive economyc crisis (wich will happen again sometime soon), the last on was small collapse counting the modern globalization. USA (EU to to lesser extent) will just have to pray that China wont take the money out of the system, since it was one of the mains reasons why USA didnt hyperinflate. On the other hand Dollar is ment to disspear soon, since years and yaers ago USA allready planned North-American currency amero, forseeing that dollar would be useless in future. Euro is ending its lifecycle too. Every currency has lifetime, i dont know the mechanics behind it, but eventually they stop working, then you get new currency or rebuild the old one. PS! yes bad english, english is not main language. EDIT! Yes year ago the harvest wasnt good here either (Eastern Europe). And yes the lack of recources is like ROFL hahahahaha what bullshit capitalism currently is. Lithium batterie powered electric cars for example. With all known recources of lithium you can only supply ONE country of europe (i think it was Spain) with electric cars, ONE, and that exluding all the mobile phones etc. So there is no futer in electric cars (wich are powered by lithum batteries). Iridium for LSD televisions will run out in 50 years at this rate. Instead of recycling those extremely valuable materials (wich btw China is limiting in export, thou it gives 90% of worlds supply), we throw them away in this "free" extremely wasteful kapitalistic system. And most disturbing thing about liberals is, they are COMPLETELY ignoring all of the realities of the commulitive collaps of current world. | ||
| ||
