START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
Group Discussions
label:  
  Government & Politics
| track thread
« Back to topics
Ron Paul's Progress Report
3 years ago
| Government & Politics

 

From an email I recieved through his Liberty PAC...

 

Tuesday, March 29

Dear Katii,

The last week has been full of travel across the country as I try to spread our message of Liberty. And let me tell you, our movement has never been stronger!

I spent Wednesday speaking with Iowans and meeting with homeschoolers.  The response was terrific!  Homeschool students really understand the threat big government posses to our country, and they responded wonderfully when I told them about my efforts to get out of the United Nations and to win them $5,000 tax credits.  I am also the only major potential presidential candidate who will pledge to abolish the Department of Education.

I also met with the Governor of Iowa and the chairman of the Iowa Republican Party.  Just a few years ago, their doors would have no doubt been closed to me, but thanks to all of our hard work, those in power are seeing the strength of our ideas and are becoming more and more receptive.  We are winning hearts and changing minds.

Thursday and Friday brought me to New Hampshire, where I spoke to over 600 students.  I am told that several other Republicans spoke in the same room earlier this year and drew no more than 40!  There were several other meetings, and as I visited with leaders and lawmakers, I got the feeling that the Granite State is energized and ready for a Revolution!

As I write this email, I am returning from a speech at North Carolina State University.  Estimates are that 1,500 students participated, further evidence that young people are awake and ready to take their Liberty back.  The next generation of leaders will be the lifeblood of our political efforts, and seeing so much enthusiasm inspires me to work even harder.

I have been so energized by the last few days that I am planning more travel in April and May.

On April 11th, I will head to Iowa to speak at Dordt College and then attend several events in the East.

On April 20th, I will go to Mississippi State University, and then on to Florida State on April 21st. 

On April 25th, I will be in New York City for a book signing and appearances on no less than 6 tv shows, including The View and The Colbert Report. [emph. mine]

And finally, on April 28, I will head to The University of Nevada in Reno.

I am also considering an additional trip to New Hampshire in April, and then trips to New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada in May.

But today, I need to hear from you to gauge your interest and excitement. Are we making headway? 

If you like what we have done so far, and want us to continue our aggressive travel, please consider a contribution to Liberty PAC

A gift of any size, whether it be $20.12, $50, $100, or even as small as $10 would be tremendously meaningful to me. 

As I weigh my options for 2012, one of my biggest determining factors will be the support from across the country.  I very much hope you can let me know if you are on board.

For Liberty,

Ron Paul 

3 years ago

Off to use some of my tax return to contribute to Liberty PAC

3 years ago

Dear Katii,

The press is calling.  The political elites are watching.  They all want to know. 

The question is, what will our answer be?

You see, today is the last day of the first quarter.  Tomorrow, I have to file a report with the Federal Election Commission to show how much money we have raised this quarter.

So, exactly how much will we report?  The eyes of the nation will be upon us.

Let me tell you, every other politician with national ambitions is shaking down the special interests and raking in big checks from the banksters and the military industrial complex.

Of course, those fat cats never give to our causes because we are fighting to shut them down!

Our strength lies in our numbers and commitment to Liberty.  So far, over 15,000 individuals have dug deep this quarter and contributed.

Will you join them and help send a message?

Or, if you have already donated, please consider adding an additional amount to your gift.

Today, every single dollar counts.  I hope you will join us.

A gift of any size, whether it be $20.12, $50, $100, or even as small as $10 would be tremendously meaningful to me.

As I weigh my options for 2012, one of my biggest determining factors will be the support from across the country.

I very much hope you can continue to help me demonstrate the strength of our message.

For Liberty,

Ron Paul 


P.S.  Your support is critical in guiding my 2012 decision making and guaranteeing a successful political operation so we can elect the type of President who will take our country back from the statists. 
Exclusive: Ron Paul's $3M pot of gold
3 years ago

 

Politico

 

Ron Paul raked in roughly $3 million during the first quarter through his various political organizations, POLITICO has learned.

 

Though not all of that money can be transferred to a potential presidential campaign, the big haul demonstrates Paul’s continuing force as a grassroots-powered online fundraiser.


The Texas congressman raised $1 million through his federal PAC and $2 million through Campaign for Liberty, a 501C(4) which cannot transfer funds directly to political organizations. Paul’s fundraising documents, to be filed later Thursday with the FEC, will also show he has $1.7 million on hand in his congressional campaign account.

 

“Dr. Paul's fundraising comes almost exclusively from individuals, not special interests,” LibertyPAC director Jesse Benton told POLITICO. “He received contributions from all 50 states, and his average gift this quarter was under $70, demonstrating his broad grassroots support.

 

“Dr. Paul's grassroots fundraising prowess is unmatched, and any 2012 political endeavor on which he embarks will have the financial backing it takes to win,” Benton added.

 

Much of Paul’s funds came via a Presidents' Day money bomb that netted $700,000 for his federal PAC. The money bomb was promoted through Paul’s Facebook page and libertarian websites promising his fans that “if we show him enough support, he will announce his official candidacy for 2012.”



3 years ago

I am so proud that Ron Paul will not take money from big business ... he won't be bought. How refreshing. If he makes it to the oval office he won't owe anyone and he will be able to represent we the people.  

3 years ago

How refreshing is this?   I also receive Liberty PAC and follow Ron Paul's progress.   I haven't sent in a donation but I will.    Imagine that...me the moderate republican whose party has lost its way.

 

I read a great article last year about 2011 and 2012 being historical years for our country.   I didn't consider at that time that it might include a true Libertarian being elected in 2012 to the highest office in our country.   Today I not only consider it but I know it is quite possible.

 

It's difficult to watch both the republican and democratic party being swallowed by big corporations and global governance.   We can no longer trust those making decisions for us.   

 

As George W. Bush created the perfect storm for  Barack Obama to be elected to the highest office in our country it looks like Barack Obama has created the perfect storm for  Ron Paul.

 

How will Congress treat Ron Paul if he is elected POTUS?

 

 

3 years ago

Dear Katii,

The 2012 political season is starting to heat up, and I am pleased to announce two important trips next week.  

On Monday, I will be making two stops in Iowa. The first event will be at the Dordt College Campus Center, located at 498 4th Avenue NE in Sioux Center.

I will be giving a public lecture on Liberty and family at 10:00 am CT, and the public is most welcome. 

Then, I will fly east to Cedar Rapids, where I will speak to students at Kirkwood College at 3:00 pm CT. The event will be in Iowa Hall on the third floor, Rooms A&B. 

Both of these events are in key areas for us, and we need to work hard to build support. 

I hope you can attend, as it would sure help me to demonstrate the strength of our message. Carol will be traveling with me, and she would love to see all of you!

From there, I will spend most of the rest of the week in DC, voting and fighting hard for Liberty on Capitol Hill. 

But I am happy to announce that the week will end with a special trip to New Hampshire on Friday, April 15th.

As Tax Day is just around the corner, it's important to note that you and I are fighting to END the income tax and make each April going forward far more pleasant. 

But until we elect a President that will make that happen, I hope we can get together this month to talk about Liberty and plan our Revolution.

You can come visit with me at Saint Anselm College's New Hampshire Institute of Politics Auditorium, located at 100 Saint Anselm Drive in Manchester. We'll begin at 6:00 pm and will have a lot of fun. 

And, I am going to bring as many copies as possible of my new book, Liberty Defined, to give away to attendees. 

Liberty Defined will not be available anywhere until April 19th, so if you come, you will have a chance to be among the first folks to get a copy.

These trips are all very important as I weigh our options for 2012 and decide the best way to fight for Liberty. 

I hope you will spread the word to your friends and family and join me next week!


For Liberty,

Ron Paul 

3 years ago

Any cuts to the military in Ryan's plan?  The DEA?  DHS?  IRS?  CIA?  FBI?

3 years ago

Latest S.C. straw poll win goes to Ron Paul – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Bluffton, South Carolina (CNN) - Texas Rep. Ron Paul won the latest in a string of presidential straw polls being conducted in key South Carolina counties this month ahead of the state Republican Party convention in May.

Paul won the vote at the Lexington County Republican Party convention on Saturday, taking 16 percent of the 139 ballots cast. Lexington is considered a bellwether county in Republican primaries and is home to South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, but the party organization there has seen an uptick in libertarian-leaning Paul supporters in recent years.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who has done almost no presidential spadework in the crucial early primary state, had another respectable straw poll showing and finished in a tie for second place with business mogul Donald Trump, taking 12 percent of the vote.

 

Romney finished fourth in a Greenville County straw poll last weekend and second in a Friday night vote at the Charleston County convention.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who won the Charleston straw poll and attended Saturday's Lexington event in person, finished with 10 percent and tied for fifth with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

 

Lexington GOP Chairman Rich Bolen also asked party members to pick their second choice for the Republican nomination. Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann won that poll with 18 percent of the vote.

 

In the grand scheme of presidential campaigns, of course, straw polls are only informal surveys conducted by a relative handful of party activists. But they can be helpful in providing an early read on how the GOP's most dedicated voters in key primary and caucus states view the 2012 field.

Some straw polls are more informative than others, however.

 

Heavily Democratic Orangeburg County hosted its GOP convention on Saturday and ran a straw poll with 30 names on the ballot, including several noncandidates such as former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, Michigan Rep. Thaddeus McCotter and House Speaker John Boehner.

But only 25 Republicans attended the convention.

3 years ago

Ron Paul on The View this morning (4/25)
 

3 years ago

 

Ron Paul will announce tomorrow he will form an exploratory committee...

 

Ron Paul is taking a big step closer to a longshot presidential bid, announcing Tuesday [tomorrow] that he will form an exploratory committee.

 

A Paul source confirmed to POLITICO that Paul will announce an exploratory committee during a visit to Des Moines. He will also announce his Iowa political team.

 

 

Three members of the state party's central committee will co-chair the Texas congressman's campaign in Iowa, a source said.

 

Paul, who has a small but dedicated following, will hold a press conference at the Holiday Inn near the Des Moines Airport to make the official announcement.

 

Paul shattered online fundraising records in 2008 and is expected to do much the same this time around. Though Paul does not boast much of a familiar D.C.-based infrastructure, his team is well-connected among various tea party and grassroots conservative organizations.

 

The Texas congressman's libertarian stands during the 2008 campaign have become the inspiration for much of what the new Republican majority in the House has pushed — and may have proved to be the spark that ignited the tea party.

 

If he does indeed get in, Paul will have a direct claim to the tea party mantel, especially in the absence of a fresh face that excites grassroots conservatives.



 http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53687.html#ixzz1KaKUf6CE

 

3 years ago

Ron Paul is currently on TV with Stephen Colbert.  If you miss it, you can pick it up from Colbert's web site tomorrow. 

3 years ago

 

Here's a Ron Paul supporter at 2:19!

 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77rtyQf6Hwk&feature=player_embedded

 

Gotta say ... with supporters like that, you know there's got to be a sinister underbelly.

 

3 years ago

Ron Paul ranked higher than all other prospective candidates in Time magazine's "100 Most Influential People" ranked by readers worldwide.

Here is a brief excerpt from the list:

  1. #14 Ron Paul - higher than any prospective political candidate
  2. #24 Sarah Palin - ugh!
  3. #44 Hillary Clinton
  4. #45 Michele Bachmann - ugh!
  5. #46 Barack Obama - Pretty bad for a sitting president - relatively speaking
  6. #62 Mitt Romney - Can't beat Obama
  7. #67 Chris Christie
  8. #188 Newt Gingrich - Ha! Ha! Compared to Hamid Karzai(#160) and Muqtada Al Sadr(#175)

    Ron Paul 2012!

http://dailypaul.com/162670/ron-paul-beats-all-prospective-candidates

 


Other's that I don't think were listed...

 

3/10/11 - House Floor Speech
Congressman Paul strongly cautions against military involvement in Libya, including establishing a no-fly zone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt5fKMBveMU

3/17/11 - House Floor Speech
Congressman Paul urges his colleagues in Congress to bring the troops home from Afghanistan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUT7jnaaxcs

3/26/11 - On Fox with Mike Huckabee
Impeachment and Libya. Mike tries to put words in Ron Paul's Mouth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrZ6s5s9MOI

3/28/11 - Freedom Watch
Congressman Ron Paul on Judge Andrew Napolitano's "Freedom Watch" to discuss President Obama's abuse of power in regard to Libya and how Congress should proceed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkp_m_YrRvM

3/29/11 - Cut the Spending
Congressman Ron Paul joins Neil Cavuto to discuss the potential of a government shutdown, spending, current political climate, the consequences of fiscal irresponsibility and hope for reform, and the pending threat of price inflation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyJAoP652nw

03/31/11 - Tavis Smiley PBS
Congressman Ron Paul on PBS to discuss Libya.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a8JAVdf6MU

03/31/11 - Bloomberg
Congressman Paul discusses the documents the Fed released by court order today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPHWrddDLkc

4/5/11 - Dylan Ratigan MSNBC
Congressman Paul discusses budget issues with Dylan Ratigan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNRXzVC_E5s

4/7/11 - Hearing
Subcommittee hearing on Bullion Coin Programs at the US Mint.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHH96zGUAJg

4/12/11 - Anderson Cooper CNN
Congressman Paul discusses the budget deals with Anderson Cooper
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeMyedqmKvs

4/13/11 - Lou Dobbs Fox Business
Congressman Paul discusses budget issues with Lou Dobbs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSCYiDgoF6U

4/19/11 - Hardball with Chris Matthews MSNBC
Congressman Paul discusses wars and debt with Chris Matthews.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_4ndPGweVE

4/25/11 -  Sean Hanity Fox
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txPB980tBws



This post was modified from its original form on 25 Apr, 22:19
3 years ago

I though Spitzer gave Paul a straightforward and fair interview.

 

Why isn't raising the cap on SS contributions ever brought up in these discussions? Also, a big one would be to allow the government to use its buying power to demand lower prices from pharma, for all the pts. on medicair or medicaid. Every other country does this.

 

Then just raise taxes on millionaires and billionares, end the wars, eliminate for profit insurnance companies and there'd be no need to decide how much the poor can suffer.

 

Paul says it's "tryanny" to have a mandated minimum wage? Easy there buddy you're going too close to Sarah Palin country,  where every gov regulation takes our personal freedom and everytime Goldman Sachs makes anothe 10 billion all Ameicans can rejoice.

 



This post was modified from its original form on 26 Apr, 2:19
3 years ago

Bryan;  minimum wage laws exist in the States.  It's a States rights issue.  That makes sense.  The cost of living in States varies. so.....

 

The Supreme Court found that national minimum wage is unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment.

 

Curious though....  if the cap on SS were lifted, would the benefits be raised also? 

 

On Medicare and Medicaid, the Medicare Prescription Modernization and Improvement Act (passed by Republicans ) banned price negotiation from big Pharma.  The Obamacare bill did exactly the same thing.  Not a coincidence.   These Corporations own DC.  Those that advocate government "solutions" empower those that control DC.  And the bureaucracy  and regulations in running these programs is one of the culprits of the costs we pay for this service. 

 

Government spending (all levels) is now about almost 46% of the US economy.  That is parasitic.   Over 9% of the US GDP is now deficit spending by government.  This is a Ponzi scheme of the highest order.  Either that changes, or a collapse will happen.

 

As far as taxing the rich more?  At a $1.7 Trillion deficit, you could raise about $700 Billion by doubling the taxes on the top 1% (to about 90% including State and local taxes and property taxes).  That leaves a $1 Trillion deficit.  AND the costs of this in the resultant implosion of capital would raise interest rates due to a lack of cash going into bonds and general investments.  The increase in interest rates would add another $100- $200 Billion to the costs of the government debts.  And depress the economy. 

 

Even when taxes on the rich were 95% under FDR, the maximum income the Federal government has ever raised is about 20% of the GDP.  That is the ceiling.  The Federal government is spending about 27% of the GDP.  Big increases in taxes won't solve the problem.  The problem is the government is too big and spends too much.  And we cannot afford it.

3 years ago

Bryan;  minimum wage laws exist in the States.  It's a States rights issue.  That makes sense.  The cost of living in States varies. so.....
 The Supreme Court found that national minimum wage is unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment. -Jim

 

This seemst to be what most anti-Paul people don't understand (or choose to ignore), that Paul is a U.S. Constitutionalist, which makes him also a States Rights-ist.  What the federal government is not empowered by the Constitution to do is left for the individual states governments to [Constitutionally] decide for their state.
 
Christian, regarding the man you point to in that video, what exactly do you consider sinister about the Constitution?

3 years ago

Angelica, I caught Paul on both Hannity and Colbert last night. I loved how Paul handled Hannity's whining about the snowballs


Here's the vid...



Paul will be with Spitzer tonight, CNN 7:00 p.m. Central

 

Also he will be on Fox at 6:15 p.m. Central

3 years ago


<<Christian, regarding the man you point to in that video, what exactly do you consider sinister about the Constitution?>>

 

I'm pretty sure you're kidding, right? You couldn't possibly think the Constitution plays any part in the support that yokel in the video shows for Ron Paul, could you? He and the rest of the people in that video are clearly ignorant, racist morons.

 

3 years ago

4/26/11 - Fox and Friends
Ron Paul on debt ceiling, FED, etc.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efXKfNgfSHg

Just an FYI
3 years ago

Katii, "ignorant, racist morons" is Christian's "code" for "birthers".

3 years ago

 

And ignorant, racist morons.

 

3 years ago

But that's not "code"

I guess I should've put it is ALSO code for...

3 years ago
Ron Paul: "Libertarianism is the enemy of all racism"

 

3 years ago

Christian:  "Gotta say ... with supporters like that, you know there's got to be a sinister underbelly." 

 

Please, not the "sinister underbelly" thing again.  Every thing Christian came up with earlier was thoroughly debunked.

 

So now Christian resorts to a common tactics of those that have failed utterly in their criticisms.  Guilt by association.  Attempts to discredit by mocking some fringe supporters that any candidate has. Christian supported Obama and I suppose that if I came up with some wacko's that supported him (and there were a lot of them) Obama would develop a "sinister underbelly"?  No?

 

You've got nothing, and this is just sadly pathetic Christian.

3 years ago

Sharia law is already being practiced in some states -Rhonda

 

Where, in what way and by whom, Rhonda?

3 years ago

 

"Thoroughly debunked," huh?

 

3 years ago

What 'wasn't' debunked, Christian?  Tell us

3 years ago

We need a living wage in this country. You can argue whether or not it's best to leave this up to states, but it is not a matter of "tryanny." I  definetely wouldn't suggest Ron Paul is similar to someone like Palin, but i'm sick of economic issues, or others, being ridiculously framed as "preventing tyranny."

 

 

"Those that advocate government "solutions" empower those that control DC.  And the bureaucracy  and regulations in running these programs is one of the culprits of the costs we pay for this service."  --Jim

 

`

I don't think it's a matter of creating more government bueacracy. It's just a matter of allowing the government to negotiate for lower prices from the pharma industry -- like every other developed nation does.

 

Not every policy or law needs to be framed as "more government bureaucracy" or "big government."  It's often just a matter of having policy that only benefits big corporations or is beneficial to society. The size of government is not the determining factor.

 

I agree that taxing the rich cannot be the only thing that balances the budget. But the insanity is that we're being told we absolutely must cut programs that benefit low income workers and cut public employees, which also won't do much to lower the debt, but will cause much more pain for the average American and will also depress the economy.

 

We're always told that taxing the rich and big corporations will have negative consequences, yet when these taxes were higher in the past the economy was always fine. And the idea that lowering these taxes will increase jobs and investment in the US has always been proven false.

 

There is no reason to think that a combination of raising taxes on the wealthy (not drastically), requiring corporations to pay a fair share of the mega-profits they make (as opposed to often nothing!), raising the income cap on SS payments, and making big cuts in military spending won't make a significant difference. And makes much more sense than cutting back on teachers, police, etc. and on assistance programs.

3 years ago

One other thing about the Ron Paul video with Spitzer -- Paul says wages are set by productivity. A look at the last several decades in the US where productivity has gone up a lot and wages remained stagnate or decreased for workers doesn't show this. And of course one could look at places where there are no laws protecting workers at all and find that huge productivity does nothing to help workers in these countries.

 

Paul also mentions the industrial revolution. Yeah, that's when people had to work 14 hour days to afford living in a slum. And there were no market forces that mitigated this.

 

But it is great that he's not afraid to say we need to cut military spending and that we can't afford empire.



This post was modified from its original form on 26 Apr, 13:10
3 years ago

Bryan, I believe the the rise in 'productivity' (in the U.S.) is due mostly to 'automation' not labor.  And, as long as we are not allowed to enjoy a free market we will be living with stagnating wages for decades to come.  When free market forces are not allowed to live, this - our whole shytty economy - is what happens.  

 

Without the federal government being the pawns of big business, creating laws and regulations that inhibit market freedom and that insulates the bigs from competition, which also gives them, instead of labor, the upper hand on 'wages', we have a better than good chance at a thriving economy.



This post was modified from its original form on 26 Apr, 13:38



This post was modified from its original form on 26 Apr, 13:39
3 years ago

Thanks, Dynamite, for the edification

3 years ago

We need a living wage in this country. -Bryan

 

Talk to the Fed about that - they are the ones that cause the ridiculous inflation we live with, have been living with since it's installation. The Fed is why our money has no value and why it takes $22+ dollars to have the same purchasing power as $1.00 had before the Fed came to town 98 years ago.  That's not to say there would have been zero inflation, just that the inflation would have been 'organic' if you will, and very low.

 

In the 112 years BEFORE the Fed there was barely any inflation-  in 1912 it took $1.83 to have the same purchasing power of $1.00 in 1800.  

3 years ago

Wait, Dynamite, that can't be it because Ron Paul doesn't subscribe to the whole birther thing

3 years ago

Well, it's easy to say that competition in a completely unfettered market will provide for workers, but i don't think those market forces, that may work for a relatively small local business, appyl to big corporations.

 

For example, Walmart scours the world for cheap labor and goods. Lack of government isn't going to bring about some competion that forces them to pay a living wage.

 

Powerful corps will always use their economic power, and the threat of workers having no jobs at all, to get what they want.

3 years ago

Brian:  "I don't think it's a matter of creating more government bueacracy. It's just a matter of allowing the government to negotiate for lower prices from the pharma industry -- like every other developed nation does.".......  So Brian, why did both the Republicans and Democrats guarantee Big Pharma there would not be negotiation on prices?  And why was that the first thing Obama did even before the Bill was written? 

 

"We need a living wage in this country. You can argue whether or not it's best to leave this up to states, but it is not a matter of "tryanny." I  definetely wouldn't suggest Ron Paul is similar to someone like Palin, but i'm sick of economic issues, or others, being ridiculously framed as "preventing tyranny."".......Brian, the Federal Government imposing anything in violation of the Constitution is Tyranny. 

 

"Not every policy or law needs to be framed as "more government bureaucracy" or "big government."  It's often just a matter of having policy that only benefits big corporations or is beneficial to society. The size of government is not the determining factor."  Let's talk about reality here:  what Government policy  has not generated more government and more costs?  Feel free to give examples. 

 

The fact is that as government grows in power, it attracts elements that use that power for their own purposes.  AGAINST the interests of the people.  There are no historical examples where this has not happened.  The founders of this country understood that.  That's why they placed restrictions on government: "the chains of the Constitution".

 

Indeed, size and power of the government was to be limited precisely because it was understood that a powerful government would increasingly not represent the general public, but would represent "factions". 

 

And that's exactly what has happened.



This post was modified from its original form on 26 Apr, 14:11
3 years ago

Jim, everything you just said - Truth.

 

 

...the Federal Government imposing anything in violation of the Constitution is Tyranny. -Jim

 

Exactly.

3 years ago

"So Brian, why did both the Republicans and Democrats guarantee Big Pharma there would not be negotiation on prices?  And why was that the first thing Obama did even before the Bill was written?"

`

 

Of course because both parties are controlled by corporate agenda. But that has nothing to do with the argument that our government should in fact negotiate prices to save money, like other developed nations do. It is a good argument against corporate control of government.

 

One argument is that we should just get rid of medicaid and medicare, but assuming we keep these programs, to just say that "government is the problem, government should have no role in the market," is just a way to further entrench this corporate agenda which is the problem in the first place.

 

 

"the Federal Government imposing anything in violation of the Constitution is Tyranny." 

`

OK, then should we have nothing on the national level that is not specifically mandated in the Constitution? No national child labor laws, workers safety laws, public education, national parks, etc.? Really? People just use that arguement to demonize programs they don't like.

 

 Anyway, can we stop calling the existence of a national minimum wage "tyranny", because it isn't tyrannising anyone. If one believes it shouldn't have been ruled constitutional then that is one thing, tyranny is another. Something closer to tyranny would be when people had to work 14 or more hour days for a pittance because no labor laws existed -- and that is also a good look at an unfettered "free" market.

 

And it really doesn't bother anyone the thought of people having to work for even less than our measly min wage? All it takes is a very quick look at the nature of corporate activity to undestand that they will pay as little as they can possible get away with. In the same way globalization works now (that giant sucking sound) -- corporations would move to the states willing to pay people the least and give up other rights.

 

Jim, you keep framing this as only a matter of quantity instead of quality. As if we could just eliminate 40% of government, no matter what that meant, then life would be better. Well the fact is that there is a huge difference in, for example, eliminated a big chunk of what the government wastes on military spending and in eliminating financial regulations that the government used to enforce. It didn't cost us more or expand government to have those financial regulations, but it sure cost us after they were eliminated.

 

Instead of trying to get any government involvement out of private business, and think that they will somehow regulate themselves, all citizens should be working to break the ties between our government and corporations. Ironically, it's the Reananesque "government is the problem" belief that further puts government in the hands of the uber-wealthy elite and escalates our problems.

 

 

3 years ago

Honestly, what is wrong with kids being able to work?  No, I'm not talking about 'child slave labor' with no opportunity for education or social development, but what is wrong with a child learning and earning???  I never understood that mentality.

 

 

 

Maybe you can help me out with this, Bryan... why do people so often equate limited government with lawlessness?  I see it everytime someone defends big government.  Enforcing laws that protect the rights of the people IS a constitutional function of federal government.

3 years ago

Katii, wanting certain regulations or national standards is not the same as wanting a big government -- as in power to do just do what it wants or spend whatever it wants. I don't know why people equate those things. I don't want to live in a big police state, but i do believe certain laws are necessary in our society and should be enforced. And certain laws we have aren't and shouldn't be, imo.

 

It seems a lot of it just comes down to what laws or regulations people believe are necessary. You say the government should enforce laws that protect people, but are against most corporate regulations. I can't see what is more important in protecting people than preventing powerful corporations from exposing us to toxins, abusing workers, or looting the economy.

3 years ago

Katii, I do wish your Ron Paul the very best of luck!

3 years ago

On a side note, there's no chance whatsoever that Ron Paul or someone like Kucinich will get elected. Our only choice is the two candidates backed by our two corporatist parties.

 

We need campaign fincance reform. That would do a lot to help other issues also. But then it comes down to changing a system that greatly benefits those who have the power to change it. I don't think just voting is ever going to do it.

 

But i still very much advocate for voting third parties -- at least to help force other voices into the process. even if they don't end up in power they still bring up issues, and i guess it's part of a slow change.

3 years ago

Ron Paul was official yesterday in running on the GOP ticket.  He needs to go on more shows than MSNBC Dylan Rattigan and Chris Matthews who he frequently calls up.  They have a phone line set up with him.

 

He will certainly add more interest to the GOP debates.

 

Now, they are waiting for Mitch Daniels to toss his hat in the race.

3 years ago

Thanks for your input, Bryan.  I agree with most if not all of it.  I would just rather be able to make polluters accountable than for federal law make it legal, which they've done.

 

 

Our only choice is the two candidates backed by our two corporatist parties. - Bryan

 

The only way that is true is if voters continue to keep wasting their votes on the very same parties and people who've been screwing them out of house and home.  It's ALWAYS up to the VOTER, and no 'party' has a gun to anyone's head when they are in the voting booth.

 

Ss, I agree that Paul needs to be 'everywhere' as much as possible, particularly in those places where the 'candidates' are discussed most, that being MSNBC, CNN and Fox (I think that's still where most voters get their 'news').  He spends a lot of time on college campuses too, students (and enlisted military) being among his strongest supporters.  Young people are behind Paul in great numbers, and they are very active and organized, because they are looking at their futures, the futures the establishment statists WILL bring them, and it's very dark out there.  

3 years ago

Brian: "And it really doesn't bother anyone the thought of people having to work for even less than our measly min wage? All it takes is a very quick look at the nature of corporate activity to undestand that they will pay as little as they can possible get away with. In the same way globalization works now (that giant sucking sound) -- corporations would move to the states willing to pay people the least and give up other rights."

 

Instead of moving jobs overseas right Ken?  Isn't that what has happened? And the States have no accountability to the citizens of that State?  Or you just don't trust the people of those States to do the right thing?

 

"Of course because both parties are controlled by corporate agenda. But that has nothing to do with the argument that our government should in fact negotiate prices to save money, like other developed nations do. It is a good argument against corporate control of government."

 

....... Thanks for making my point Ken.  So why then do you advocate for more government or the continuation of super sized government?  That empowers the Special Interests and the Corporations since you have admitted that they control the government.  Or does the end justify the means?  This seems to be the excuse of Progressives:  It's alright to pay off the Corporations and Special Interests to get the programs they want.  Extortion is OK.  Corruption is acceptable.  The problem with that is like any extortionist; they always want more.  It's a criminal mindset.  One that has led to ruination.  

 

You have ignored the truth again.  The size/money and power of government always attracts those that seek to use that power for their own benefit.  We see the results.  The only way to end that is to return this country to the rule of law under the Constitution.  If you don't like something, and people agree, you can pass a Constitutional Amendment to change it.

 

 

3 years ago

"Jim, you keep framing this as only a matter of quantity instead of quality. As if we could just eliminate 40% of government, no matter what that meant, then life would be better. Well the fact is that there is a huge difference in, for example, eliminated a big chunk of what the government wastes on military spending and in eliminating financial regulations that the government used to enforce. It didn't cost us more or expand government to have those financial regulations, but it sure cost us after they were eliminated."

 

Ken, there were plenty of regulations.  They were not enforced because of the regulators were "captured" by those who they were supposed to regulate.  As is Congress.  The Dodd- Frank Financial Reform bill empowered the Fed to bail out the "too big to fail" Corporations without even telling the Congress next time!  What we don't know won't hurt us.  Maximum opacity and maximum profits for the Banksters.   

 

And who writes the regulations Ken?  Do you understand that the Lobbyists fill the legislation with loopholes? Then the head of the regulatory agencies write the regulations based on the loopholes.  Those heads of the regulatory agencies are appointed from the same exact corporations that are supposed to be regulated. 

 

Washington is a Gordian Knot.  Unraveling it is impossible.  The only way to end the corruption is to cut that knot.

3 years ago

Brian:  "Jim, you keep framing this as only a matter of quantity instead of quality. As if we could just eliminate 40% of government, no matter what that meant, then life would be better."   ........We don't have a choice Brian.  We can't keep on borrowing 40 cents of every dollar the government spends.  If you would raise taxes to cover the deficit, the resultant taxes will crush the economy.

 

We don't need government spending (all levels) to be 46% of the economy.  We don't need the deficit to be 9-10% of the nations GDP. 

 

Do you realize that just the  interest on just the deficit from this year will be  an additional $700 in debt for every American taxpaying household EACH YEAR from now on?  Add next year and its another $700 plus the interest on the first years $700 so $1,428.  And that goes on until this country is forced to default on ALL of the programs that are so dear to Progressives.

 

Oh yeah, you mentioned the military and the wars......  I have no problem with bringing the troops home and closing overseas bases.  That will save us hundreds of billions a year.  A 40% cut in the expenses should be done at once.......  How about the Progressives cutting 40% off the rest of the spending?

3 years ago

HE CAN IF WE SAY SO. -Rhonda

 

 

3 years ago

The size/money and power of government alwaysattracts those that seek to use that power for their own benefit.  We see the results.  The only way to end that is to return this country to the rule of law under the Constitution.  If you don't like something, and people agree, you can pass a Constitutional Amendment to change it. -Jim

 

Again (and again, and again...), you say it all so well...  I could just you.

 

3 years ago

This thread is getting long, please continue at PART II HERE