@troyhung333 The solution to the rising costs is the excess government intervention. Free market competition by private commerce would drive the prices down.
Destroy corporatism. When you have few companies controlling the whole system, they team up and lobby with government, resembling fascist economics.
If you have more options and choices, competition and free market will naturally lower prices to try to attract more customers. Few companies with complete control can charge whatever they want because they know you have no choice but to go through them.
healthcare well thats has nothing to do with goverment, that has always been owned by the free, u see doctors are paid to say false states about diese's to scare people into thinking they need meds.
kinda like how obeseity is a diese, when there just eating to much. plus the medical world hasnt even hit 100 years old in the modern world.
healthcare was never a right , but u can still go to e.r.
Americans are reborn every 10-20 years, if the constitution and bill of rights is repealed we won't have a womb anymore.
Freedom of Choice to be a real American is fine with me, its just sad that so many of the previous two generation chose to laugh at the Supreme Law and even are attempting to undermine it for the future generations.
@sicktoaster Apparently, because of the way the Federal Reserve (Fed) operates, ANY money the government spends is ALREADY DEBT . When you pay taxes, the government pays interest on loans it has from the Fed, a privately owned corporation which will not submit to government audit. Paul wrote a book called "End the Fed". One of the reasons he is being marginalized in mainstream media, is that he strongly threatens rich and powerful people, many of whom have great media influence
If there are jobs to work and save over the summer to save cash and I only need to pay ten percent of my income to attend the school, I'd say, "Hell yes." Student from Utah.
Are people stupid if Ron Paul eliminated Public Colleges and Government loans the prices of Colleges would rise not lower. Because we would all be forced to go to Private School and wouldn't have the cheaper Public Option. Education would become like the Oil Company where we have to buy at there prices no matter how high or you can do without education.
@animejerk05 You are incorrect sir. The reason college is so expensive is because of supply and demand.The easy to get loans flood the system with easy cheap money. Since more people are willing and able to pay more and more for an education and colleges cannot keep up with the flood of students then prices rise. If we closed the spigot of easy to get loans, students would not be able to take a loan out as easily, colleges would drop prices to entice new students.That is economics.RONPAUL2012
@EthanE3 dont listen to that propaganda college video it says the adverage high school graduate makes $36,000 in the first 4 years and I was thinking what job is this. Even if colleges drop heir price by a little parents still wouldnt be able to afford it. The way this economy is now they wouldnt be able to afford it minorities would get kicked out of college its that simple The price wont go to how it was in 1970. Those days are done finish get it out of your head
@EthanE3 , agreed. you end up paying for all the money pathway nodes and prices rise.
And not only that, new initiates are inoculated debt. Welcome to debt. Welcome to the treadmill. The one bright thing is that the education is so dumbed down, that there is developing an alternative education system, as more people wake up. Is there anyone out there?
you can make more money from investing your money into treasury bills, which is want the us govt does for social security. and you don't lose it all with a 100% death taxes if you happen to pass away. I don't know why the US doesn't look at the reforms in Australia as a stepping stone for reform. Hello superannuation - private pension accounts. "Collectively worth about $1.3 trillion—much the same as GDP... world’s fourth-largest market for pension savings."
All the lazy rednecks sitting on their ass right now are like WTF "Don't ask the government for anything" ? But than who is gona take care of my fat ass!
As a libertarian, I will not be voting for Ron Paul. I agree with him on 90% of the issues and more so than any other politician I can think of, but the strict adherence to a certain set of beliefs with no compromise makes him dangerous in my opinion. Just because it's in the Constitution, does not mean it's the way it should be due to the fact it's old or tradition. I agree on what he wants to do, but I disagree with the moral reasons he presents. I can't consciously vote for someone like that.
@groam6666 Vote for whoever you agree most with, the important thing is that you vote, and then follow-up your vote with "If you want my vote next term you'll do what I want, and won't do what I don't want, and if you do either you're not getting my vote again." That's your say in the USA., a constitutional republic and representative democracy, use it. Vote for whoever you agree with most, remember Dr. Paul has 4 years if elected, and very little may actually change, he has no party support.
When Dr. Paul said this, everyone shot it down, and I did too. After some consideration however, I now agree 100% with Dr. Paul's suggestion to opt out. I would opt out under Ron Paul's America.
The Government should be FOR THE PEOPLE, This means security in police and military and disaster relief, this means equality and rights, this means infrastructure in airports, RAILWAYS, roads, and ENERGY.
THIS MOTHERFUCKER GOT HIS NERVE....HEY RON..DIDN'T YOUR JACKASS SON JUST GOT ELECTED SENATOR...BUT OH NO!!!!!! YOU WANT EVERYBODY ELSE TO OPT OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT......NO FUCKING WONDER YOU WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT....NOT WITH THAT DUMB ASS THINKING....
@MrPlaid81 If some people want that, give them that choice! Why does 20% of the population get to make decisions for the other 80% and force them to pay for it even if they don't consent (with penalties up to and including death)? All of those services have demand and therefore can be provided fine without government, and if they didn't then they shouldn't be done at all. It really is that simple. If a government truly is necessary to do them, cut off access to those that don't agree to pay.
@Houshalter How do you propose we keep track of people who have opted out? Also isn't there a hint of monstrous insanity in forsaking certain areas to chaos? America would lose it's solvency. Also, no one gets the death penalty for tax evasion they just have to pay or go to jail. Furthermore, I presume the 20% you're referring to is congress. Although I think we could improve the system, these people were elected. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
@MrPlaid81 How does the government keep track of all it's regulations and taxes as it is?
If government can't even get enough of it's own population to voluntarily consent to it to work, it shouldn't exist at all.
And yes, if you don't pay your taxes, they steal your stuff. If you prevent them from doing that, you go to jail. If you defend yourself, you will most likely be murdered. All of this is determined by a "representitive" "chosen" from 20% of the population or less.
@Houshalter You're misunderstanding my question. Say you have a city with apartments haw are the firefighters in the middle of a conflagration supposed to know which renters have paid their taxes or haven't?
What if the renters have paid, but the building owner hasn't? "Voluntary consent"?! You do understand that there is a dearth of jobs out there and that's why people are unemployed. Your scenarios for outcomes of tax deniers are ridiculous.
@MrPlaid81 I don't know if firefighters would be included in the opt outs, that is local government. The fire department and the community in question will have to solve these problems on their own. As for unemployment, what does that have to do with anything?
Really, so it's ridiculous to assume you will go to jail if you don't pay taxes? It's ridiculous to assume that if you defend yourself, you will most likely be killed? You are living in denial if you think that.
@Houshalter Yes, if you break the law and choose to be a tax evader you could go to jail. Usually the option of paying what you owe comes first. If a Tax Evader attacks a police officer it's possible they could get shot, like any other law breaker. If you want to opt out of America, you want to be on your own; then leave. But you can't stay and say, "I want all the benefits of America without having to chip in." We're all in this together or we're not.
@MrPlaid81 that's bs. Love it or leave it has never been a valid argument. Was it ok for Hitler to persecute jews and say "if you don't like our laws, leave"? Every immoral law in history could be defended like that. Taxation is theft. It assumes that the government has a higher claim to our property then we do, and has a right to use any and all necessary force to take it from us, even if it means murder. As I've said, I don't want any of the benefits from the gov, so let me opt out!
@Houshalter So you think Tax Evaders are being thrown into work camps and incinerated alive? Taxation is paying your dues, if you don't you're a freeloader. You don't get to pick and choose what laws you obey you can only work to change them. No one is murdering tax evaders that's a false dilemma. Besides, you can't opt out of the roads, the security provided by armed forces and police, subsidized sugar & corn. It's impossible to live here without getting some indirect benefit from taxation.
@MrPlaid81 your first point is irrelevant. Either people are being immorally coerced into paying taxes and using government fiat currency through the real threat of violence or they aren't.
As for the free rider problem, if I become a bee keeper and all the people within a 3 mile radius that have plants of any kind benefit from my bees, do I have a right to go and demand they give me money to pay for my services? Of course not. Determining peoples subjective values of things and...
...the most efficient way to allocate finite resources is impossible without voluntary transactions. A far more effective way would be if I went around doing a survey of who values the bees and how much they'd be willing to pay. Maybe I could make a contract like "would you agree to pay for my bees if X% of other people also agreed", or something like that. And of course there would be competetion against me to try to meet consumer demand better or cheaper then I can.
@Houshalter If you compare the woes of a Tax Evader to a Jew rounded up and incinerated then your point has been served up to be dismantled. In regards to your beekeeping point corporations do exactly that when their copyright seeds migrate to another pasture. What you are arguing for is to have your cake and eat it too. It's unrealistic. It's like someone stuffing their pockets at a grocery store then complaining about having to pay.
@MrPlaid81 obviously there are different degrees of morality involved, one is litterally murdered, the other threatened to be murdered unless he gives up half of his income. The point was that "love it or leave it" has never been a valid argument for any law or moral standpoint.
Intellectual property is highly controversial subject among libertarians, but I'm pretty sure most would agree persecuting farmers because your pollen happened to get into their field is wrong. How does that refute...
...my beekeeper analogy? You can opt out of a grocery store by not going to it, or going to the competetion. Grocery stores are not centrally planned, nor do they force people to use and pay for their goods against their consent. And yet everything works fine.
@Houshalter I wasn't refuting the beekeeper point I was noting that Corporations in fact do exactly that. No ones threatening to murder anyone. They are brought to court and can pay what they owe or go to jail. Actually, if only one grocery store is in town you have only one option to get your groceries. So by default you are forced to buy from them or starve. If you had to do everything without the benefit of taxes you'd live in a mountain and raise all your own crops which is near impossible.
@MrPlaid81 no, voluntary trade between people is what built society the way it is today, not governments. There is absolutely no reason this can't apply to the few things left it still has a monopoly over, and if it really can't, then there will be no problem with letting people opt out. If you refuse to see the the coercion behind the state, that's your own problem, but that doesn't make the system we live under voluntary or consentual by any measure....
@Houshalter Trade?! Really? Greece, Rome, the Ottoman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, the Qing Dynasty, The Aztecs, The Mayans, The Haudenosaunee, Spanish empire, British empire, Dutch empire, the American empire, soon the Chinese. Without a government to direct and coordinate policy the world would not be what it is today. I can't imagine how you would come by such a huge misunderstanding that the world came to where it is without governments.
@MrPlaid81 That's like a master telling his slaves "you would not be where you are now if it wasn't for me!" 99% of states throughout history were brutal oligopolies designed only to benefit a handful of elite, and it would take alot of distorting facts to say that is not what we have now.
Just local taxes? Just income tax? Are you counting all the hidden taxes, inflation, debt, etc? The government spends 43% of GDP (state and national), and that money just doesn't pop out of thin air.
@Houshalter The fact of the matter is, no one is threatening to murder anyone. You're not really that important to the government as you seem to think and I doubt you're paying half your income. If you're really fired up about it then work to change the laws, but somebody will always have to pay taxes. That's just a reality, it has been for as long as there has been civilization.
...Yes, taxation is about half of income, maybe more or less for the average worker since it is not distributed evenly. Most of it comes from hidden taxes, esspecially inflation and debt which are still there, but the problems from them are delayed until after the politicians responsible are long gone. Infact, it's been argued the entire federal income tax from the middle class barely pays for the interest on the debt created by politicians years before many of us where even able to vote.
@GreenBigTruckcom if the government takes 50% of the average persons income through taxes (albiet many of them are hidden or indirect so you really wouldn't be able to opt out of them easily), then 10% is far preferable.
No actually, it wouldn't. Universities simply cannot afford to lower the tuition without either
A.) firing a ton of professors
and/or
B.) selling off equipment and removing departments.
Same amount of people with lower tuition = less professors = less people allowed in the school = even less professors = less consumption in entire economy = recession.
Believe it or not, government spending is good for the economy. What we need to change is how efficiently we are spending our tax $.
@ebaumsdidit the university system as it is might not survive in a free market, but good ridance. If we didn't have a public education system for k-12, many of the problems we see in higher levels of education might not even be there.
@cs292 Thats not true. A prime example is Latin America. The prices for education are high in comparison to the earnings of the people. If they don't have the money they don't get the education
I support Mr. Ron Paul. I think that this would do a world of good to ease the congestion on our FEDERALLY FUNDED expressways! Thank you sire for finally finding a way to shorten my commute time!
@NoFuturePete "It's unfair to expect someone making minumum wage to pay the same proportion of their income as millionaires and billionaires. "
Really how is it unfair? First of all 50% of America DOES NOT pay income taxes...secondly, HOW is it unfair? I had to explain this yesterday but we will give you a lesson in math again...10% of 30,000 is < 10% of 1,000,000,000...If you don't believe me PLEASE use your calculator.
I would gladly opt out of paying for Social Security. But you take away the FDA, and I'll be glad to sell any middle American my tainted bottle water. offer my uncertified health services, and advertise myself as a leading neurosurgeon and healer of all cancers. Without regulators and legal guidelines. I can happily do all this and fleece the whole of the ignorant lot. Now who wants to invest in my idea?
@pvd021 By it's own numbers, the FDA kills more lives by withholding lifesaving medicines then it saves by preventing bad ones from going to market. If someone sells stuff to people based on lies, that is fraud, which you don't need regulation to stop, it's already illegal. And just try selling me your tainted water over someone else that has had theirs checked out by an objective third party. If I'm still dumb enough to buy yours, I deserve it! Plus stores care about their reputations.
@Houshalter Yes the FDA is often heavy handed in their product evaluation, but what you propose is exactly what happened in the 1800's. No accountability, where medicine men would drive from town to town selling elixers promising cures for everything. Selling you an ineffective medicine isn't FRAUD, it might not work for you but it will for others. So accusation of fraud is difficult. Look at Homeopathic medication. I getyou're point, but EVEN stupid people should be afforded protection.
@pvd021 what are you trying to say? There are private regulators out there that work fine, like UL, and they are far more efficient.
Snake oil salesman are frauds. If they lie about the product they are selling, that is just plain fraud. If they are completely honest about it, I don't see what is wrong with that either.
You can inform a person that you don't approve of a decision they are making, but you have no right to force them to do things your way.
@Houshalter Private Regulators aren't perfect. Private regulators also gave triple A status to junk bonds and stock companies which tanked many hundred year financial firms and the US economy. Private entities are not impartial, they have a vested interest upon the preservation and growth of themselves. Neither systems are perfect, but 9 out of 10 times, I'll prefer the non profit entity over the private for profit entity.
@Houshalter I'm curious as to your position.. Why not? That's how ALOT of research and development are funded. Its through government grants. I'm pretty sure a private entity would to research in creating a good product, but I doubt it would spend money researching its safety, effects on the environment, or long term affects. the only reason why they do it now is because of govt mandates. Just look at china and the quality of their products, lead toys. poison pet food etc.
@pvd021 All of the time and resources wasted in government research, without government, simply would have gone to wherever market demand required it the most and we would all have a higher standard of living for it. Maybe we wouldn't have a hundred scientists studying some obscure theoretical subject with little real value to society, but instead researching new technologies or at least something people are actually interested in or care about.
@pvd021 there are entire books written on non-government regulation, it's a complex subject. The principles though, are fairly simple. If enough people are willing to spend the extra money for a product to be checked by an objective third party, then there will be a demand for that, which will almost certainly be met by the market.
@pvd021 "the only reason why they do it now is because of govt mandates. Just look at china and the quality of their products, lead toys. poison pet food etc."
You are overlooking the fact that the government of China owns over 85% of all factories that produce our lead toys, and poison pet foods....so your point is really dishonest, as they don't poison our pet food, and make lead toys for our children because of the LACK of govt regulation...in this case the GOVT are the ones doing it. Yeah
What about bank regulations? Schools? Roads? Wars? Food regulation?
If big oil pollutes in your yard or someone commits a crime do you have to shoot them everytime? You can't have the cops deal with it? Who pays for the prisons and courts?
Whos pays for the dmv? Now you cant have a license.
Who pays TSA to touch your balls at the airport? What about streetlights? Water? Property rights?
10%... my ass. It would never work, it's literally anarchy.
@boricuamm707 if you don't like it, don't opt out, it's that simple. Libertarians are no better at central planning then anyone else, we just don't pretend to be, so I can't answer how everything would work optimally without government.
@Houshalter My point was that you CAN'T opt out of those services. You CAN'T opt out of having a road to drive on, and you can't opt out of having the police patrol your neighborhood. Just read everything else I mentioned in the first post, there is almost no way to ignore that stuff, unless you want to go back to the 1700's. For someone to be able to enjoy those luxuries at the cost of others is ridiculous and the furthest thing from realistic.
@boricuamm707 10% of your income just for a few minor services like roads already seems excessive. The vast majority of people wouldn't opt out at first, but a lot of people would, and they would probably congregate in their own communities and solve these problems on their own. As private options emerged for things the government used to do, and the government itself became so bogged down it debt it stopped doing them, more people would switch over. It would be a very slow, peaceful transition.
@Houshalter No you are grossly underestimating the costs of all those things I listed.
And a huge issue would be what about wars and military? 10% wouldn't be nearly enough to cover all the things that we see in our lives on a daily basis. The average national LOCAL income tax is 9.8% alone.
Theres no way in hell that .2% for the feds will cover all the laws needed, banks to be regulated, property rights. It would NEVER work, not even close.
@boricuamm707 um, no nuclear armed country in history has ever been invaded, and a minimal military force costs almost nothing compared to what we have now.
And no, I am not "grossly underestimating the costs" of government services, they are vastly overestimating their actual value and inflating their costs far past what is necessary due the inherent inefficiency in central planning. Even if we assume they do cost so much, there is no reason they can't be provided on a voluntary basis.
@Houshalter Who will voluntarily create the nukes to protect our country, and with our trust?
No I'm not underestimating because I used FACTS. the average local income tax is 9.8%. It is impossible to feed the feds with .2%.
If th government has overestimated the costs and we could drop from <30% to 10 then why do you think we haven't? Do you really think Social security etc is costing us the other 20%?
DO you have any realistic data that could explain how 10% is even close to reasonable?
@boricuamm707 then let people opt out! If it's necessary, then I would gladly pay for roads and military services or whatever, at least in the short term until other options could emerge. The point Ron Paul is trying to make is to let people choose whether or not they want to be trapped in these ridiculous entitlement programs.
Republicrats most common and overused argument against the Flat Tax % : "Rich should pay more than the poor, that is unfair asking them to pay the same amount"...when you ever see that comment my friends take that as evidence to their lack of intelligence. I mean if we all pay 10%, a rich man DOES pay more than a poor person...10% of $100,000 = $10,000 in taxes....10% of 30,000 = $3,000 in taxes...
now correct me if I'm wrong but...$10,000 > $3,000...but that is just basic math. LOL
@EmptyBottleTherapies The rich don't pay more then the poor. They get ridiculous tax deductions. Look at the AMT charts, the minimum tax allowed ranges from 6-20%. And trust me if you don't think the rich are deducting that much of their pay then you are blind my friend. And the amount you pay vs the percent you pay is entirely different and should be.
It shouldnt be 3% of 100k is equivolent to 10% of 30k. Thats insane! The rich aren't close to paying the same percent the American people do.
@boricuamm707 Why don't you look up the actual statistics, and not trust that the truth is what "you want it to be". The top 50% of Americans pay 95% of the taxes, sorry to burst the marxist illusionary bubble. It is absolutely fair to pay an equal %. Why have a system that punishes you for earinging more money? Or a system that punishes anyone really? A flat tax % is the only truly "fair" way about it. You are upset over greed and jealousy of others success, which doesn't prevent yours.
@EmptyBottleTherapies The bottom 80% of the population also owns 7% of the national wealth. I would agree if the rich were actually paying near what we pay as a %. They get itemized deductions, keep money in their corporate capital, and in untouchable trust bonds. The AMT is 6-20% of their gross income, that is realistically what they are paying. If you really think that they don't pay less taxes then a worker then you are blind. Get rid of their tax loopholes and a flat tax could work.
@boricuamm707 I can prove that your view is totally based upon jealousy, and general greed. Take a number you feel is fair for someone making 30k to pay in taxes to the federal government...got that number in your head? I don't care if it is $100, $1000, or $3000...after you have that figure that you consider fair to pay, now do the math and get the % of that to 30k, now apply that % to someone making 100k, and force the government to live off a budget, instead of LOANS. Sounds fair to me.
@EmptyBottleTherapies By the way, my opinions were on being able to opt-out. Opting-out would NEVER work. I have nothing against the flat tax, because it would be helpful if the rich paid their fair share. But I would prefer a progressive tax. And I don't think it's punishing them for being rich, if you consider that a punishment then I'd glady take your money so you can have less taxes lol. I really think most Americans would prefer to be in the higher tax bracket then the lowest.
Republicrats are funny...you keep voting in the same people over, and over again and scratch your heads when the results are the same. I love how this is supposed to be an "attack" against Ron Paul...Shows you how screwed up the majority of sheeple are. He says don't rely on the government for anything, do it for yourself...isn't that advocating "Personal Responsibility"...what exactly is wrong about that? Or is the new "moderate" approach a mix of personal and govt responsibility over "me".
an interview with eva prior revealed that ayn rand, very woman who sparked libertarianism with her "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." philosophy...received govt assistance after getting lung cancer(medicare and SS) under the name ann o'conner...prior said: doctors cost a lot more money then books earn & she could have been wiped out without these programs.
@siliedy1975 How does bringing up what a desperate woman did when she had lung cancer (no matter how far it was from her personal beliefs) mean that citizens"opting out"would be a disaster for the US?
As it stands my generation will not see a penny of social security because the greedy pigs in govnt decided to SPEND all the money going into social security on other random shit. The system we have now simply does not fucking work, that is not really arguable, and red herrings solve nothing.
ayn rand was the mother of the very idealism that the libertarian party promotes and worships....if the "ME" philosophy didn't work for HER, what makes you think that it works at all?....It does not matter how desperate she was, the philosophy that only "self" matters and who cares what happens to our communities would be a disaster for the US
I am no happier then you, to be paying into a system that is filled with dusty IOU's but opting out is not a wise option. Fixing it is..
@siliedy1975 So how would we fix it? By scribbling on a piece of paper, "electing" someone else who has already long ago been bought out by lobbyists? You can't fix a system that is fundamentally broken. I don't (nor do any libertarians) advocate a "me" philosophy. I think a better answer is the stop taking my fucking money philosophy and let the free market actually be free, which will raise prosperity for everyone.
"scribbling on a piece of paper or electing someone" may be the extent of your political involvement, in which case I understand your difficulty in constructing a viable solution for a fundamentally broken system, other then opting out..."free market" will rise prosperity for everyone? I suggest you look at a perfect model of a society that by definition is a FREE MARKET, CHINA where there are no labor or product regulation, no civil right(china is not a country, its a sweat shop)
@siliedy1975 haha if you have a better solution for our broken system with your presumed political prowess I would be happy to entertain it. It puzzles me how you can peg china as a definitive free market when they have tariffs of up to 50% on items like imported beers,and combined with their manipulative currency devaluation makes them anything but a free market.The free market does work with countries like India rising out of poverty everyday by thousands of people after adopting sum traits.
What he said was taken out of context. While I agree that he should have made it clear, he was referring to the welfare state and the military industrial complex.
Most of us who argue for social justice NEED NOTHING from anyone. We are NOT JUST CONCERNED ABOUT OURSELVES YOU SELFISH RETARD NON-HUMAN SCUM. If you have not thought of this already, then you deserve to be called that.
WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE WHO ARE NOT AS LUCKY AS US.
This is so stupid. If you don't need health insurance then your boss will pay you less. If you need to pay for for health insurance, then he or she will pay you more, Either way, you will still come out with the same amount. The economics of society will adjust to ONLY what you need -- a house, a car, a holiday, food, etc. .
And then, when you get in a car crash, everyone else is supposed to pay for you because you have no money?
no schools, no fire department, no police, no hospitals (all hospitals receive government money) no sewers, no electricity, no roads, no grocery stores, no cars, ..all of these things and more receive government funds directly or indirectly either through regulation or subsidy...isn't anarchy beautiful?
@UBSCARED according to you, we need to raise taxes. See, 1950 is considered right smack dab in the middle of our golden years. 1947-1976. When tax rates were in the 70+ RANGE FOR THE WEALTHY. I support going back to that. But stupid people listen to folks who make 250,000.00 a yr. say they will hurt job growth. Where where in the hell have they been over the last 40 yrs? Warrentless wiretaps. extraordinary rendition, waterboarding, your idea of freedom?
@UBSCARED according to you, we need to raise taxes. See, 1950 is considered right smack dab in the middle of our golden years. 1947-1976. When tax rates were in the 70+ RANGE FOR THE WEALTHY. I support going back to that. But stupid people listen to folks who make 250,000.00 a yr. say they will hurt job growth. Where where in the hell have they been over the last 40 yrs?
@UBSCARED Just a thought UBSCARED (don't jump down my throat like so many Youtubers do these days) But isn't there a considerable difference between freedom and liberty? While freedom allows us to speak without fear of reprisal, liberty allows us to do so without Government intervention. So although I maybe free to say the government is crap, i'm not at liberty to send my child across town to a better school than the one across the street from my house. What say you?
WRong Paul is such a liar. Under his proposal, we'd all have to give the govt more than 10% of our incomes because of state and local taxes. In fact, we'll have to pay a LOT more, because if Paul has his way, the federal govt wouldn't provide any money for state and local services.
Why is he at CPAC anyway? He's not actually very conservative, except for the issue of abortion. He's really more of a right-wing reactionary.
you're all batshit crazy. Ron Paul calls for Liberty, people are supposed to help themselves, not suckle at the tit of socialistic programs the government creates by taking 3 months of our paycheck out of the year to benefit the poor. GDIs.
That's like asking my boss to pay me so I can sit in the break room all day. Seriously? A government's job is to take care of its people. If we are going to pay taxes, I expect them to be spent in a way to help us. That means healthcare, education and the like. Asking us to pay the government without wanting help is ridiculous. We would be giving the government money to do whatever they want with. Without regulation, without voting, a government can very very easily make a turn for the worst.
wtf, the people has to give 10% of their income to the gorvernment and they can't ask them for anything? So basically just give them money and in turn you get a big FUCK YOU!
oh yeah, i'd opt-out of american government, meaning if i were to be shot, police wouldn't do an investigation and paramedics wouldn't help me, neither would insurance companies. and if banks were going to steal (more of) my money, surely the courts aren't going to help me, so i'll just make it a jury trial in which case i have to spend more money to take them to court. but even then, the judge is a government employee...
well, atleast i don't have to deal with that pesky government anymore!
Don't ask the gov't for anything? That's fucking stupid. And anyone who thinks that they can get through life without government is fucking stupid. What a bunch of fucking retards up in the CPAC convention. Truly the dregs of American society.
quick calc for germany: paying 19% on all products except foods (7%), paying up to 47% income tax, paying into health insurance industry (15%+), drop all that, make it 10% on income, no other taxes, and people would be way better off, though some sort of social security net, if it cannot be afforded from the 10% would be good to have.
@DidYouJustMakeThatUp Actually Republicans are worse because the they are convinced they can create reality with the power of their mouth.
Look what they did during the middle of what they called a "battle for civilization itself", they investigated steroids in sports. They probably spent more on that than they did on investigating 9/11. Imagine them looking into drinking in baseball during WWII.
@SpitfireOFatj its not who's worse, both parties are decadent and foul. it's about finding the diamonds in a world of cut glass. and like it or not Ron Paul is a good politicians due to his voting record.
@mechanicalbu11 I still prefer Kucinich. He knows the government has the power to protect workers. Ron Paul has a philosophy that if you don't like being mistreated you should go work for someone else and if enough people do that the employer will have to treat their workers better or nobody will work for them. That's bull because they will always find people willing to be exploited especially in hard times. We talk about "freedom" but live under tyranny from our bosses to get a paycheck.
good! so you can't drive then unless you build your own roads, can't talk to anyone with an education from a state school, can't live in an area where your garbage is collected, can't buy fuel for your car because gov. subsidises the oil companies, can't buy food in the supermarket because the food is regulated not to contain poison...
pathetic idea and yet he is still the one of the finest politicians in America...
at least he is honestly trying to create debate...
@ebaumsdidit If the gov't didn't subsidize expensive college educations, they wouldn't be so expensive.
Or you could you know, work for the money. Or maybe you get your loan from an independent private bank or other investor. Or maybe you wouldn't go to college at all. What makes you believe you're entitled to an education in the first place?
@ebaumsdidit that has skyrocketed the price of college tuition, if it didnt exist colleges would have to give much more competitive prices to students because they wouldnt be able to afford it. its that program itself that has turned the college system from education to a money making scheme
@Salladsdressing My student loan caps at 7,000 dollars a year being paid back. Any loan you get from the government beyond that is absolved by the government so the most you will owe if you graduate on time is 28,000 dollars for a degree that likely costs more than that. The free market will not offer me this.
loans ARE provided by the free markets...all private financial institution(provided you have the right credit score) offer student loan and they are anything but cheap...
@ebaumsdidit I feel like most of Ron Paul's younger supporters are either unaware of his fiscal conservatism and what it means for their student loans, or come from wealthy families and don't understand what it's like to need one.
@gallomex13 Why not take that money you spend on sales tax income tax house tax tax tax tax and invest it and take care of yourself? We could let private industry pave roads rather than the government. Create private sector jobs. Remove the wellfare state and take care of yourself.
@informationrevolt we need a ying and yang......the problem here is that the yang (corporations) buy out the ying (the goverment) and the real issue here is that no matter who paved that road we the people will lose money regardless......because the united states goverment doesn't give goverment contracts to small companies because the rich friend of a senator or governor has a company that paves roads and as a favor they give all the contract to one company and that is his.
@gallomex13 Really? So the Wild Wild West wasn't so wild anymore when the people started asking "the government for shit"?
Glad to know that was the reason...Here I was all this time thinking it was the lack of reliable, and speedy communication over long distances, harsh terrain. Coupled with the fact that the area was in the process of being settled, and people were always on the move, and the popoulation was thin and spread out over thousands upon thousands of untouched land. LOL
@gallomex13 you mean the mild west, that solved lots of problems just fine without government and had a lower crime rate then comparable Eastern states.
@JASONNHENCHMENN Ha ha ha ha... he is pretty good in a debate but for the most part he is a sub-par speaker, especially when he talks foreign policy. I get what he is saying but he stumbles all over his words. Seemed impromptu. I think the issue is he has so many ideas going through his head that his words come out all jumbled ha ha ha
i used to respect Ron Paul, i never agreed with everything he said, but i respected the man. this is just bat-shit crazy. opting out of the whole government? you better not drive on the roads or breathe the clean air and drink clean water. but not bitch when immigrants come over the border, better get ready for another terrorist attack since no one will be watching. and wtf are they going to do with that 10% of your income? if that's not a tax and it doesnt go to the gov, what the hell is it?
@ArtFart001 who says we wouldn't have clean air and water if the government didn't over see it? Couldn't a private organization or corporation do the job just as efficiently?
@OneTruthBoy emphatically no. are you dumb or just not paying attention? it's the private corporations that are polluting the water and air b/c that allows them to have higher profit margins. efficiency? fuck that! i'm looking for sustainability. there is no clean air and water worldwide w/o gov intervention. fact.
@UBSCARED We don't have our liberty and it has been assaulted many times. When have their ideas been tried???? Only thing sinking the economy is the Government but more specifically the Federal Reserve
What a nut job. Paul's medical career benefited from the experience he got as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force. Has he offered to give that back because it came from the government?
@DidYouJustMakeThatUp They aren't going to create jobs. To do so would require they go against their own talking points. Also the way the government creates jobs is through Liberal policies they HATE.
Don't ask the government for anything? Not roads, or police, or fire fighters, or libraries, or museums, or public education, or workman's compensation if I get injured and can't keep working, or unemployment benefits/social security to prevent the economy from being unstable, or any fiscal/monetary policy to prevent deep recessions?? Why don't we just throw away the constitution, bring back the Articles of Confederation and all secede from the Union!! USA! USA
So no government intervention for the rising health care cost and college cost?
I really want to know what is Ron Paul's plan of allowing Americans to receive affordable health care cost and college cost.
troyhung333 1 month ago
@troyhung333 The solution to the rising costs is the excess government intervention. Free market competition by private commerce would drive the prices down.
sleepyeyeguy 1 month ago
@troyhung333
Destroy corporatism. When you have few companies controlling the whole system, they team up and lobby with government, resembling fascist economics.
If you have more options and choices, competition and free market will naturally lower prices to try to attract more customers. Few companies with complete control can charge whatever they want because they know you have no choice but to go through them.
Competition, choices, and free market are the key
Da1RiSiN1sMoKe 1 month ago
@troyhung333 thats an easy one.
college is not a right, u have to earn it.
healthcare well thats has nothing to do with goverment, that has always been owned by the free, u see doctors are paid to say false states about diese's to scare people into thinking they need meds.
kinda like how obeseity is a diese, when there just eating to much. plus the medical world hasnt even hit 100 years old in the modern world.
healthcare was never a right , but u can still go to e.r.
theOnly1232 2 weeks ago
Americans are reborn every 10-20 years, if the constitution and bill of rights is repealed we won't have a womb anymore.
Freedom of Choice to be a real American is fine with me, its just sad that so many of the previous two generation chose to laugh at the Supreme Law and even are attempting to undermine it for the future generations.
Newproducersradio 1 month ago
As long as you're responsible with your money and live below your means, there's no reason the government should pay you for being old.
The problem with that is most people are fucking morons who waste their money on stupid shit and have nothing when they retire.
Well fuck 'em. I don't feel like paying for other people's stupidity and laziness.
ChromeTruckNutz 1 month ago
Pay 10% of your income and get NOTHING. Listen to what he's saying folks.
At least now the government will actually do something with the money we give them.
When I pay taxes I expect the government is going to actually use it.
sicktoaster 1 month ago
@sicktoaster
OK that was uncalled for.
He's said he supports national defense.
I was taking him way too literally in the video.
Still undecided on him.
sicktoaster 1 month ago
@sicktoaster Apparently, because of the way the Federal Reserve (Fed) operates, ANY money the government spends is ALREADY DEBT . When you pay taxes, the government pays interest on loans it has from the Fed, a privately owned corporation which will not submit to government audit. Paul wrote a book called "End the Fed". One of the reasons he is being marginalized in mainstream media, is that he strongly threatens rich and powerful people, many of whom have great media influence
liangobread 1 month ago
If there are jobs to work and save over the summer to save cash and I only need to pay ten percent of my income to attend the school, I'd say, "Hell yes." Student from Utah.
CraftyMiscreant 1 month ago
Its called "Sovereign citizen" and already exist since 1776..look it up.
CaptionKing 2 months ago
Are people stupid if Ron Paul eliminated Public Colleges and Government loans the prices of Colleges would rise not lower. Because we would all be forced to go to Private School and wouldn't have the cheaper Public Option. Education would become like the Oil Company where we have to buy at there prices no matter how high or you can do without education.
animejerk05 2 months ago
@animejerk05 You are incorrect sir. The reason college is so expensive is because of supply and demand.The easy to get loans flood the system with easy cheap money. Since more people are willing and able to pay more and more for an education and colleges cannot keep up with the flood of students then prices rise. If we closed the spigot of easy to get loans, students would not be able to take a loan out as easily, colleges would drop prices to entice new students.That is economics.RONPAUL2012
EthanE3 2 months ago
@EthanE3 dont listen to that propaganda college video it says the adverage high school graduate makes $36,000 in the first 4 years and I was thinking what job is this. Even if colleges drop heir price by a little parents still wouldnt be able to afford it. The way this economy is now they wouldnt be able to afford it minorities would get kicked out of college its that simple The price wont go to how it was in 1970. Those days are done finish get it out of your head
animejerk05 2 months ago
@EthanE3 , agreed. you end up paying for all the money pathway nodes and prices rise.
And not only that, new initiates are inoculated debt. Welcome to debt. Welcome to the treadmill. The one bright thing is that the education is so dumbed down, that there is developing an alternative education system, as more people wake up. Is there anyone out there?
liangobread 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IT'S DR. 'SIR' RON PAUL :)
FIGHT MEDIA BLACKOUT SPREAD RON'S 'WHAT IF' AND 'IMAGINE' SPEECH ON IPAD,IPOD
THE MEDIA SHOULD BE QUESTION THE FED, THE WAR ROOMS & 9/11 TRUTHS, BAILOUTS FOR WALL STREET BUBBLES, ETC.
WORLD WATCHES ON - AMERICAN MEDIA IS ON THE TRUMAN SHOW
DO THEY KNOW THAT?
♥ RON PAUL ♥ RON PAUL ♥ RON PAUL ♥ HE WINS HEARTS NOT JUST VOTES
CHECK VIDEOS ON NIGEL FARAGE TAKING EU GOVT. TO TASK
ALSO WRITE ON DOLLAR BILLS : IN RON WE TRUST ! END THE FED OR FEED THE END
ashwadhwani 2 months ago
Wow, so I'm not the only one who has thought of this!
SUpersaiyajinjerkbag 4 months ago
@Epicnerdgasm REGULATION of corporation and government = save sex
gallomex13 4 months ago
you can make more money from investing your money into treasury bills, which is want the us govt does for social security. and you don't lose it all with a 100% death taxes if you happen to pass away. I don't know why the US doesn't look at the reforms in Australia as a stepping stone for reform. Hello superannuation - private pension accounts. "Collectively worth about $1.3 trillion—much the same as GDP... world’s fourth-largest market for pension savings."
fabes0011 5 months ago
He's not saying OPT-out of America... This isnt America anymore, He's really saying lets OPT-back into what America was supposed to be....
Reinherse 6 months ago 17
@Reinherse AGREEEEEE!!!!!
LifeStyleOverDosed 1 month ago
All the lazy rednecks sitting on their ass right now are like WTF "Don't ask the government for anything" ? But than who is gona take care of my fat ass!
eugkra34 7 months ago 14
We have every reason to be optimistic!
alohaoliwa 9 months ago
As a libertarian, I will not be voting for Ron Paul. I agree with him on 90% of the issues and more so than any other politician I can think of, but the strict adherence to a certain set of beliefs with no compromise makes him dangerous in my opinion. Just because it's in the Constitution, does not mean it's the way it should be due to the fact it's old or tradition. I agree on what he wants to do, but I disagree with the moral reasons he presents. I can't consciously vote for someone like that.
groam6666 10 months ago
@groam6666 Vote for whoever you agree most with, the important thing is that you vote, and then follow-up your vote with "If you want my vote next term you'll do what I want, and won't do what I don't want, and if you do either you're not getting my vote again." That's your say in the USA., a constitutional republic and representative democracy, use it. Vote for whoever you agree with most, remember Dr. Paul has 4 years if elected, and very little may actually change, he has no party support.
MrObenauer 7 months ago
When Dr. Paul said this, everyone shot it down, and I did too. After some consideration however, I now agree 100% with Dr. Paul's suggestion to opt out. I would opt out under Ron Paul's America.
Ron Paul 2012
redcomic619 10 months ago
The Government should be FOR THE PEOPLE, This means security in police and military and disaster relief, this means equality and rights, this means infrastructure in airports, RAILWAYS, roads, and ENERGY.
M5Beast 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
...HEY RON...YOU MOTHER FUCKER....SHOULDN'T YOU BE IN A AN OLD FOLKS HOME..SENILE BITCH...
salbella50 11 months ago
@salbella50 real mature
destyniboutique 10 months ago
@salbella50
shouldn't u be at DC sucking the cock of the federal government politicians?
FlankerVT 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
FUCK ALL THIS SHIT YOU PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT IN HERE...AND YOU CALL YOURSELVES (THINKERS)....WHY DON'T YOU THINK ABOUT PAYING YOUR FUCKING TAXES..
salbella50 11 months ago
THIS MOTHERFUCKER GOT HIS NERVE....HEY RON..DIDN'T YOUR JACKASS SON JUST GOT ELECTED SENATOR...BUT OH NO!!!!!! YOU WANT EVERYBODY ELSE TO OPT OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT......NO FUCKING WONDER YOU WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT....NOT WITH THAT DUMB ASS THINKING....
salbella50 1 year ago
@salbella50 Number of people that have had their minds changed because they read a long all caps comment with poor grammar on the internet: 0
Houshalter 1 year ago
how about letting this fascist system fail altogether and build something much better?
likelivingstones 1 year ago
Don't ask for national defense, don't ask for roads, police or fire department. Don't ask for courts, judges, law. Let's just have anarchy.
MrPlaid81 1 year ago
@MrPlaid81
That's the goal.
BabelOn4infinity 1 year ago
@MrPlaid81 If some people want that, give them that choice! Why does 20% of the population get to make decisions for the other 80% and force them to pay for it even if they don't consent (with penalties up to and including death)? All of those services have demand and therefore can be provided fine without government, and if they didn't then they shouldn't be done at all. It really is that simple. If a government truly is necessary to do them, cut off access to those that don't agree to pay.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter How do you propose we keep track of people who have opted out? Also isn't there a hint of monstrous insanity in forsaking certain areas to chaos? America would lose it's solvency. Also, no one gets the death penalty for tax evasion they just have to pay or go to jail. Furthermore, I presume the 20% you're referring to is congress. Although I think we could improve the system, these people were elected. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
MrPlaid81 1 year ago
@MrPlaid81 How does the government keep track of all it's regulations and taxes as it is?
If government can't even get enough of it's own population to voluntarily consent to it to work, it shouldn't exist at all.
And yes, if you don't pay your taxes, they steal your stuff. If you prevent them from doing that, you go to jail. If you defend yourself, you will most likely be murdered. All of this is determined by a "representitive" "chosen" from 20% of the population or less.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter You're misunderstanding my question. Say you have a city with apartments haw are the firefighters in the middle of a conflagration supposed to know which renters have paid their taxes or haven't?
What if the renters have paid, but the building owner hasn't? "Voluntary consent"?! You do understand that there is a dearth of jobs out there and that's why people are unemployed. Your scenarios for outcomes of tax deniers are ridiculous.
MrPlaid81 1 year ago
@MrPlaid81 I don't know if firefighters would be included in the opt outs, that is local government. The fire department and the community in question will have to solve these problems on their own. As for unemployment, what does that have to do with anything?
Really, so it's ridiculous to assume you will go to jail if you don't pay taxes? It's ridiculous to assume that if you defend yourself, you will most likely be killed? You are living in denial if you think that.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter Yes, if you break the law and choose to be a tax evader you could go to jail. Usually the option of paying what you owe comes first. If a Tax Evader attacks a police officer it's possible they could get shot, like any other law breaker. If you want to opt out of America, you want to be on your own; then leave. But you can't stay and say, "I want all the benefits of America without having to chip in." We're all in this together or we're not.
MrPlaid81 1 year ago
@MrPlaid81 that's bs. Love it or leave it has never been a valid argument. Was it ok for Hitler to persecute jews and say "if you don't like our laws, leave"? Every immoral law in history could be defended like that. Taxation is theft. It assumes that the government has a higher claim to our property then we do, and has a right to use any and all necessary force to take it from us, even if it means murder. As I've said, I don't want any of the benefits from the gov, so let me opt out!
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter So you think Tax Evaders are being thrown into work camps and incinerated alive? Taxation is paying your dues, if you don't you're a freeloader. You don't get to pick and choose what laws you obey you can only work to change them. No one is murdering tax evaders that's a false dilemma. Besides, you can't opt out of the roads, the security provided by armed forces and police, subsidized sugar & corn. It's impossible to live here without getting some indirect benefit from taxation.
MrPlaid81 1 year ago
@MrPlaid81 your first point is irrelevant. Either people are being immorally coerced into paying taxes and using government fiat currency through the real threat of violence or they aren't.
As for the free rider problem, if I become a bee keeper and all the people within a 3 mile radius that have plants of any kind benefit from my bees, do I have a right to go and demand they give me money to pay for my services? Of course not. Determining peoples subjective values of things and...
Houshalter 1 year ago
...the most efficient way to allocate finite resources is impossible without voluntary transactions. A far more effective way would be if I went around doing a survey of who values the bees and how much they'd be willing to pay. Maybe I could make a contract like "would you agree to pay for my bees if X% of other people also agreed", or something like that. And of course there would be competetion against me to try to meet consumer demand better or cheaper then I can.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter If you compare the woes of a Tax Evader to a Jew rounded up and incinerated then your point has been served up to be dismantled. In regards to your beekeeping point corporations do exactly that when their copyright seeds migrate to another pasture. What you are arguing for is to have your cake and eat it too. It's unrealistic. It's like someone stuffing their pockets at a grocery store then complaining about having to pay.
MrPlaid81 1 year ago
@MrPlaid81 obviously there are different degrees of morality involved, one is litterally murdered, the other threatened to be murdered unless he gives up half of his income. The point was that "love it or leave it" has never been a valid argument for any law or moral standpoint.
Intellectual property is highly controversial subject among libertarians, but I'm pretty sure most would agree persecuting farmers because your pollen happened to get into their field is wrong. How does that refute...
Houshalter 1 year ago
...my beekeeper analogy? You can opt out of a grocery store by not going to it, or going to the competetion. Grocery stores are not centrally planned, nor do they force people to use and pay for their goods against their consent. And yet everything works fine.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter I wasn't refuting the beekeeper point I was noting that Corporations in fact do exactly that. No ones threatening to murder anyone. They are brought to court and can pay what they owe or go to jail. Actually, if only one grocery store is in town you have only one option to get your groceries. So by default you are forced to buy from them or starve. If you had to do everything without the benefit of taxes you'd live in a mountain and raise all your own crops which is near impossible.
MrPlaid81 1 year ago
@MrPlaid81 no, voluntary trade between people is what built society the way it is today, not governments. There is absolutely no reason this can't apply to the few things left it still has a monopoly over, and if it really can't, then there will be no problem with letting people opt out. If you refuse to see the the coercion behind the state, that's your own problem, but that doesn't make the system we live under voluntary or consentual by any measure....
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter Trade?! Really? Greece, Rome, the Ottoman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, the Qing Dynasty, The Aztecs, The Mayans, The Haudenosaunee, Spanish empire, British empire, Dutch empire, the American empire, soon the Chinese. Without a government to direct and coordinate policy the world would not be what it is today. I can't imagine how you would come by such a huge misunderstanding that the world came to where it is without governments.
MrPlaid81 1 year ago
@MrPlaid81 That's like a master telling his slaves "you would not be where you are now if it wasn't for me!" 99% of states throughout history were brutal oligopolies designed only to benefit a handful of elite, and it would take alot of distorting facts to say that is not what we have now.
Just local taxes? Just income tax? Are you counting all the hidden taxes, inflation, debt, etc? The government spends 43% of GDP (state and national), and that money just doesn't pop out of thin air.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter The fact of the matter is, no one is threatening to murder anyone. You're not really that important to the government as you seem to think and I doubt you're paying half your income. If you're really fired up about it then work to change the laws, but somebody will always have to pay taxes. That's just a reality, it has been for as long as there has been civilization.
MrPlaid81 1 year ago
...Yes, taxation is about half of income, maybe more or less for the average worker since it is not distributed evenly. Most of it comes from hidden taxes, esspecially inflation and debt which are still there, but the problems from them are delayed until after the politicians responsible are long gone. Infact, it's been argued the entire federal income tax from the middle class barely pays for the interest on the debt created by politicians years before many of us where even able to vote.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter Even in NY taxes are only 28%. You don't know what you're talking about.
MrPlaid81 1 year ago
@MrPlaid81 Sounds good to me.
PHenry500 1 year ago
Umm.. if we aren't asking the government for anything, why are we paying 10% to them? F that. I'll keep my 10%.
GreenBigTruckcom 1 year ago
@GreenBigTruckcom if the government takes 50% of the average persons income through taxes (albiet many of them are hidden or indirect so you really wouldn't be able to opt out of them easily), then 10% is far preferable.
Houshalter 1 year ago
if there were no fed secured student loans. the price of education would fall so people could afford it. with cash.
cs292 1 year ago 24
@cs292
No actually, it wouldn't. Universities simply cannot afford to lower the tuition without either
A.) firing a ton of professors
and/or
B.) selling off equipment and removing departments.
Same amount of people with lower tuition = less professors = less people allowed in the school = even less professors = less consumption in entire economy = recession.
Believe it or not, government spending is good for the economy. What we need to change is how efficiently we are spending our tax $.
ebaumsdidit 1 year ago
@ebaumsdidit the university system as it is might not survive in a free market, but good ridance. If we didn't have a public education system for k-12, many of the problems we see in higher levels of education might not even be there.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@cs292 Thats not true. A prime example is Latin America. The prices for education are high in comparison to the earnings of the people. If they don't have the money they don't get the education
JoeDaPlumber 6 months ago
@cs292 but uh, then I would need a job to pay for my pot and Starbucks..
KillerWhaleSFl 4 months ago
I support Mr. Ron Paul. I think that this would do a world of good to ease the congestion on our FEDERALLY FUNDED expressways! Thank you sire for finally finding a way to shorten my commute time!
lex811117 1 year ago
I don't love the goverment but fuck I hate corporations. Government is the whore but Corporations are the people who pay the whores for favors.
gallomex13 1 year ago 16
This has been flagged as spam show
@NoFuturePete "It's unfair to expect someone making minumum wage to pay the same proportion of their income as millionaires and billionaires. "
Really how is it unfair? First of all 50% of America DOES NOT pay income taxes...secondly, HOW is it unfair? I had to explain this yesterday but we will give you a lesson in math again...10% of 30,000 is < 10% of 1,000,000,000...If you don't believe me PLEASE use your calculator.
EmptyBottleTherapies 1 year ago
RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!
HoldingOnToLiberty 1 year ago
I would gladly opt out of paying for Social Security. But you take away the FDA, and I'll be glad to sell any middle American my tainted bottle water. offer my uncertified health services, and advertise myself as a leading neurosurgeon and healer of all cancers. Without regulators and legal guidelines. I can happily do all this and fleece the whole of the ignorant lot. Now who wants to invest in my idea?
pvd021 1 year ago
@pvd021
I hear that there is a sucker born every minute...you may have some takers:)
siliedy1975 1 year ago
@pvd021 By it's own numbers, the FDA kills more lives by withholding lifesaving medicines then it saves by preventing bad ones from going to market. If someone sells stuff to people based on lies, that is fraud, which you don't need regulation to stop, it's already illegal. And just try selling me your tainted water over someone else that has had theirs checked out by an objective third party. If I'm still dumb enough to buy yours, I deserve it! Plus stores care about their reputations.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter Yes the FDA is often heavy handed in their product evaluation, but what you propose is exactly what happened in the 1800's. No accountability, where medicine men would drive from town to town selling elixers promising cures for everything. Selling you an ineffective medicine isn't FRAUD, it might not work for you but it will for others. So accusation of fraud is difficult. Look at Homeopathic medication. I getyou're point, but EVEN stupid people should be afforded protection.
pvd021 1 year ago
@pvd021 what are you trying to say? There are private regulators out there that work fine, like UL, and they are far more efficient.
Snake oil salesman are frauds. If they lie about the product they are selling, that is just plain fraud. If they are completely honest about it, I don't see what is wrong with that either.
You can inform a person that you don't approve of a decision they are making, but you have no right to force them to do things your way.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter Private Regulators aren't perfect. Private regulators also gave triple A status to junk bonds and stock companies which tanked many hundred year financial firms and the US economy. Private entities are not impartial, they have a vested interest upon the preservation and growth of themselves. Neither systems are perfect, but 9 out of 10 times, I'll prefer the non profit entity over the private for profit entity.
pvd021 1 year ago
@pvd021 you can have a non-profit entity do it if you want, it just can't be funded through taxation.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter I'm curious as to your position.. Why not? That's how ALOT of research and development are funded. Its through government grants. I'm pretty sure a private entity would to research in creating a good product, but I doubt it would spend money researching its safety, effects on the environment, or long term affects. the only reason why they do it now is because of govt mandates. Just look at china and the quality of their products, lead toys. poison pet food etc.
pvd021 1 year ago
@pvd021 All of the time and resources wasted in government research, without government, simply would have gone to wherever market demand required it the most and we would all have a higher standard of living for it. Maybe we wouldn't have a hundred scientists studying some obscure theoretical subject with little real value to society, but instead researching new technologies or at least something people are actually interested in or care about.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@pvd021 there are entire books written on non-government regulation, it's a complex subject. The principles though, are fairly simple. If enough people are willing to spend the extra money for a product to be checked by an objective third party, then there will be a demand for that, which will almost certainly be met by the market.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@pvd021 "the only reason why they do it now is because of govt mandates. Just look at china and the quality of their products, lead toys. poison pet food etc."
You are overlooking the fact that the government of China owns over 85% of all factories that produce our lead toys, and poison pet foods....so your point is really dishonest, as they don't poison our pet food, and make lead toys for our children because of the LACK of govt regulation...in this case the GOVT are the ones doing it. Yeah
EmptyBottleTherapies 1 year ago
What about bank regulations? Schools? Roads? Wars? Food regulation?
If big oil pollutes in your yard or someone commits a crime do you have to shoot them everytime? You can't have the cops deal with it? Who pays for the prisons and courts?
Whos pays for the dmv? Now you cant have a license.
Who pays TSA to touch your balls at the airport? What about streetlights? Water? Property rights?
10%... my ass. It would never work, it's literally anarchy.
boricuamm707 1 year ago
@boricuamm707 if you don't like it, don't opt out, it's that simple. Libertarians are no better at central planning then anyone else, we just don't pretend to be, so I can't answer how everything would work optimally without government.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter My point was that you CAN'T opt out of those services. You CAN'T opt out of having a road to drive on, and you can't opt out of having the police patrol your neighborhood. Just read everything else I mentioned in the first post, there is almost no way to ignore that stuff, unless you want to go back to the 1700's. For someone to be able to enjoy those luxuries at the cost of others is ridiculous and the furthest thing from realistic.
boricuamm707 1 year ago
@boricuamm707 10% of your income just for a few minor services like roads already seems excessive. The vast majority of people wouldn't opt out at first, but a lot of people would, and they would probably congregate in their own communities and solve these problems on their own. As private options emerged for things the government used to do, and the government itself became so bogged down it debt it stopped doing them, more people would switch over. It would be a very slow, peaceful transition.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter No you are grossly underestimating the costs of all those things I listed.
And a huge issue would be what about wars and military? 10% wouldn't be nearly enough to cover all the things that we see in our lives on a daily basis. The average national LOCAL income tax is 9.8% alone.
Theres no way in hell that .2% for the feds will cover all the laws needed, banks to be regulated, property rights. It would NEVER work, not even close.
boricuamm707 1 year ago
@boricuamm707 um, no nuclear armed country in history has ever been invaded, and a minimal military force costs almost nothing compared to what we have now.
And no, I am not "grossly underestimating the costs" of government services, they are vastly overestimating their actual value and inflating their costs far past what is necessary due the inherent inefficiency in central planning. Even if we assume they do cost so much, there is no reason they can't be provided on a voluntary basis.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@Houshalter Who will voluntarily create the nukes to protect our country, and with our trust?
No I'm not underestimating because I used FACTS. the average local income tax is 9.8%. It is impossible to feed the feds with .2%.
If th government has overestimated the costs and we could drop from <30% to 10 then why do you think we haven't? Do you really think Social security etc is costing us the other 20%?
DO you have any realistic data that could explain how 10% is even close to reasonable?
boricuamm707 1 year ago
@boricuamm707 then let people opt out! If it's necessary, then I would gladly pay for roads and military services or whatever, at least in the short term until other options could emerge. The point Ron Paul is trying to make is to let people choose whether or not they want to be trapped in these ridiculous entitlement programs.
Houshalter 1 year ago
Republicrats most common and overused argument against the Flat Tax % : "Rich should pay more than the poor, that is unfair asking them to pay the same amount"...when you ever see that comment my friends take that as evidence to their lack of intelligence. I mean if we all pay 10%, a rich man DOES pay more than a poor person...10% of $100,000 = $10,000 in taxes....10% of 30,000 = $3,000 in taxes...
now correct me if I'm wrong but...$10,000 > $3,000...but that is just basic math. LOL
EmptyBottleTherapies 1 year ago
@EmptyBottleTherapies The rich don't pay more then the poor. They get ridiculous tax deductions. Look at the AMT charts, the minimum tax allowed ranges from 6-20%. And trust me if you don't think the rich are deducting that much of their pay then you are blind my friend. And the amount you pay vs the percent you pay is entirely different and should be.
It shouldnt be 3% of 100k is equivolent to 10% of 30k. Thats insane! The rich aren't close to paying the same percent the American people do.
boricuamm707 1 year ago
@boricuamm707 Why don't you look up the actual statistics, and not trust that the truth is what "you want it to be". The top 50% of Americans pay 95% of the taxes, sorry to burst the marxist illusionary bubble. It is absolutely fair to pay an equal %. Why have a system that punishes you for earinging more money? Or a system that punishes anyone really? A flat tax % is the only truly "fair" way about it. You are upset over greed and jealousy of others success, which doesn't prevent yours.
EmptyBottleTherapies 1 year ago
@EmptyBottleTherapies The bottom 80% of the population also owns 7% of the national wealth. I would agree if the rich were actually paying near what we pay as a %. They get itemized deductions, keep money in their corporate capital, and in untouchable trust bonds. The AMT is 6-20% of their gross income, that is realistically what they are paying. If you really think that they don't pay less taxes then a worker then you are blind. Get rid of their tax loopholes and a flat tax could work.
boricuamm707 1 year ago
@boricuamm707 I can prove that your view is totally based upon jealousy, and general greed. Take a number you feel is fair for someone making 30k to pay in taxes to the federal government...got that number in your head? I don't care if it is $100, $1000, or $3000...after you have that figure that you consider fair to pay, now do the math and get the % of that to 30k, now apply that % to someone making 100k, and force the government to live off a budget, instead of LOANS. Sounds fair to me.
EmptyBottleTherapies 1 year ago
@EmptyBottleTherapies By the way, my opinions were on being able to opt-out. Opting-out would NEVER work. I have nothing against the flat tax, because it would be helpful if the rich paid their fair share. But I would prefer a progressive tax. And I don't think it's punishing them for being rich, if you consider that a punishment then I'd glady take your money so you can have less taxes lol. I really think most Americans would prefer to be in the higher tax bracket then the lowest.
boricuamm707 1 year ago
Republicrats are funny...you keep voting in the same people over, and over again and scratch your heads when the results are the same. I love how this is supposed to be an "attack" against Ron Paul...Shows you how screwed up the majority of sheeple are. He says don't rely on the government for anything, do it for yourself...isn't that advocating "Personal Responsibility"...what exactly is wrong about that? Or is the new "moderate" approach a mix of personal and govt responsibility over "me".
EmptyBottleTherapies 1 year ago
Like a Mad Max style country?
Great idea ron, keep up the great work you do!!
TruthAndMoreTruth 1 year ago
an interview with eva prior revealed that ayn rand, very woman who sparked libertarianism with her "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." philosophy...received govt assistance after getting lung cancer(medicare and SS) under the name ann o'conner...prior said: doctors cost a lot more money then books earn & she could have been wiped out without these programs.
opting out would be a disaster for the US!!!!
siliedy1975 1 year ago
@siliedy1975 How does bringing up what a desperate woman did when she had lung cancer (no matter how far it was from her personal beliefs) mean that citizens"opting out"would be a disaster for the US?
As it stands my generation will not see a penny of social security because the greedy pigs in govnt decided to SPEND all the money going into social security on other random shit. The system we have now simply does not fucking work, that is not really arguable, and red herrings solve nothing.
numbah1pinoy 1 year ago
@numbah1pinoy
ayn rand was the mother of the very idealism that the libertarian party promotes and worships....if the "ME" philosophy didn't work for HER, what makes you think that it works at all?....It does not matter how desperate she was, the philosophy that only "self" matters and who cares what happens to our communities would be a disaster for the US
I am no happier then you, to be paying into a system that is filled with dusty IOU's but opting out is not a wise option. Fixing it is..
siliedy1975 1 year ago
@siliedy1975 So how would we fix it? By scribbling on a piece of paper, "electing" someone else who has already long ago been bought out by lobbyists? You can't fix a system that is fundamentally broken. I don't (nor do any libertarians) advocate a "me" philosophy. I think a better answer is the stop taking my fucking money philosophy and let the free market actually be free, which will raise prosperity for everyone.
numbah1pinoy 1 year ago
@numbah1pinoy
"scribbling on a piece of paper or electing someone" may be the extent of your political involvement, in which case I understand your difficulty in constructing a viable solution for a fundamentally broken system, other then opting out..."free market" will rise prosperity for everyone? I suggest you look at a perfect model of a society that by definition is a FREE MARKET, CHINA where there are no labor or product regulation, no civil right(china is not a country, its a sweat shop)
siliedy1975 1 year ago
@siliedy1975 haha if you have a better solution for our broken system with your presumed political prowess I would be happy to entertain it. It puzzles me how you can peg china as a definitive free market when they have tariffs of up to 50% on items like imported beers,and combined with their manipulative currency devaluation makes them anything but a free market.The free market does work with countries like India rising out of poverty everyday by thousands of people after adopting sum traits.
numbah1pinoy 1 year ago
What he said was taken out of context. While I agree that he should have made it clear, he was referring to the welfare state and the military industrial complex.
redcomic619 1 year ago
@redcomic619 ...BULLSHIT..THIS ASSHOLE IS JUST LIKE REAGAN AND BUSH DUMBASS WHITE PEOPLE....
salbella50 1 year ago
@salbella50 you tell them nigger! lol
WesternRevolutions 1 year ago
@salbella50 As opposed to what? Dumbass black people?
PHenry500 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Most of us who argue for social justice NEED NOTHING from anyone. We are NOT JUST CONCERNED ABOUT OURSELVES YOU SELFISH RETARD NON-HUMAN SCUM. If you have not thought of this already, then you deserve to be called that.
WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE WHO ARE NOT AS LUCKY AS US.
REPUBLICANS AND LIBERTARIANS ARE COWARDS.
SolarShip2010 1 year ago
This is so stupid. If you don't need health insurance then your boss will pay you less. If you need to pay for for health insurance, then he or she will pay you more, Either way, you will still come out with the same amount. The economics of society will adjust to ONLY what you need -- a house, a car, a holiday, food, etc. .
And then, when you get in a car crash, everyone else is supposed to pay for you because you have no money?
HEALTH CARE is A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT !
SolarShip2010 1 year ago
Ron Paul? More like Ron Butt!!
ProgressiveInAmerica 1 year ago
no schools, no fire department, no police, no hospitals (all hospitals receive government money) no sewers, no electricity, no roads, no grocery stores, no cars, ..all of these things and more receive government funds directly or indirectly either through regulation or subsidy...isn't anarchy beautiful?
tcdahn7 1 year ago
Well thats just dumb. its like paying your taxes, then the government doesnt pave your roads or fight your wars.
TheSeantague 1 year ago
@UBSCARED according to you, we need to raise taxes. See, 1950 is considered right smack dab in the middle of our golden years. 1947-1976. When tax rates were in the 70+ RANGE FOR THE WEALTHY. I support going back to that. But stupid people listen to folks who make 250,000.00 a yr. say they will hurt job growth. Where where in the hell have they been over the last 40 yrs? Warrentless wiretaps. extraordinary rendition, waterboarding, your idea of freedom?
huskerbird1 1 year ago
@UBSCARED according to you, we need to raise taxes. See, 1950 is considered right smack dab in the middle of our golden years. 1947-1976. When tax rates were in the 70+ RANGE FOR THE WEALTHY. I support going back to that. But stupid people listen to folks who make 250,000.00 a yr. say they will hurt job growth. Where where in the hell have they been over the last 40 yrs?
huskerbird1 1 year ago
Why the hell would you be paying 10% of your income? For what?
And the young people in the crowd are cheering for this proposal? Mathematically challenged or just damn gullible.
882me 1 year ago
@UBSCARED Just a thought UBSCARED (don't jump down my throat like so many Youtubers do these days) But isn't there a considerable difference between freedom and liberty? While freedom allows us to speak without fear of reprisal, liberty allows us to do so without Government intervention. So although I maybe free to say the government is crap, i'm not at liberty to send my child across town to a better school than the one across the street from my house. What say you?
seaberry9982 1 year ago
WRong Paul is such a liar. Under his proposal, we'd all have to give the govt more than 10% of our incomes because of state and local taxes. In fact, we'll have to pay a LOT more, because if Paul has his way, the federal govt wouldn't provide any money for state and local services.
Why is he at CPAC anyway? He's not actually very conservative, except for the issue of abortion. He's really more of a right-wing reactionary.
PostSurgeOperative 1 year ago
you're all batshit crazy. Ron Paul calls for Liberty, people are supposed to help themselves, not suckle at the tit of socialistic programs the government creates by taking 3 months of our paycheck out of the year to benefit the poor. GDIs.
beatle1234 1 year ago 2
That's like asking my boss to pay me so I can sit in the break room all day. Seriously? A government's job is to take care of its people. If we are going to pay taxes, I expect them to be spent in a way to help us. That means healthcare, education and the like. Asking us to pay the government without wanting help is ridiculous. We would be giving the government money to do whatever they want with. Without regulation, without voting, a government can very very easily make a turn for the worst.
SMStephMars1 1 year ago
wtf, the people has to give 10% of their income to the gorvernment and they can't ask them for anything? So basically just give them money and in turn you get a big FUCK YOU!
imnodog 1 year ago
That's not what he is saying. He isn't talking about foreign aide, he is talking about all government services. So I say, Go for it!!
MudDauper 1 year ago
Then Congressman Paul, what is the ten percent paying for?
wtfoof 1 year ago
oh yeah, i'd opt-out of american government, meaning if i were to be shot, police wouldn't do an investigation and paramedics wouldn't help me, neither would insurance companies. and if banks were going to steal (more of) my money, surely the courts aren't going to help me, so i'll just make it a jury trial in which case i have to spend more money to take them to court. but even then, the judge is a government employee...
well, atleast i don't have to deal with that pesky government anymore!
qubeh 1 year ago
Ron Paul, yeah dude is a legend but opt-out of america because you hate the govermnet? THE FUCK>>>>
Maplesyrup41 1 year ago
ehhh....WHAT?
Maplesyrup41 1 year ago
Don't ask the gov't for anything? That's fucking stupid. And anyone who thinks that they can get through life without government is fucking stupid. What a bunch of fucking retards up in the CPAC convention. Truly the dregs of American society.
wnnw98 1 year ago
@NoFuturePete Nothing wrong with big business as long as it does not use the gov/fed for favour.
martinaoe2 1 year ago
quick calc for germany: paying 19% on all products except foods (7%), paying up to 47% income tax, paying into health insurance industry (15%+), drop all that, make it 10% on income, no other taxes, and people would be way better off, though some sort of social security net, if it cannot be afforded from the 10% would be good to have.
Lhaw06 1 year ago
@DidYouJustMakeThatUp Actually Republicans are worse because the they are convinced they can create reality with the power of their mouth.
Look what they did during the middle of what they called a "battle for civilization itself", they investigated steroids in sports. They probably spent more on that than they did on investigating 9/11. Imagine them looking into drinking in baseball during WWII.
SpitfireOFatj 1 year ago
@SpitfireOFatj its not who's worse, both parties are decadent and foul. it's about finding the diamonds in a world of cut glass. and like it or not Ron Paul is a good politicians due to his voting record.
mechanicalbu11 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mechanicalbu11 I still prefer Kucinich. He knows the government has the power to protect workers. Ron Paul has a philosophy that if you don't like being mistreated you should go work for someone else and if enough people do that the employer will have to treat their workers better or nobody will work for them. That's bull because they will always find people willing to be exploited especially in hard times. We talk about "freedom" but live under tyranny from our bosses to get a paycheck.
SpitfireOFatj 1 year ago
good! so you can't drive then unless you build your own roads, can't talk to anyone with an education from a state school, can't live in an area where your garbage is collected, can't buy fuel for your car because gov. subsidises the oil companies, can't buy food in the supermarket because the food is regulated not to contain poison...
pathetic idea and yet he is still the one of the finest politicians in America...
at least he is honestly trying to create debate...
WORST IDEA EVER!! tho =)
MrBobbillo 1 year ago
"don't ask the government for anything"
But what about our student loans?
ebaumsdidit 1 year ago 10
@ebaumsdidit
How's that college education working out nowadays? Stop policing the world and the cost of education will plummet!
babyjustwin1 1 year ago
@ebaumsdidit If the gov't didn't subsidize expensive college educations, they wouldn't be so expensive.
Or you could you know, work for the money. Or maybe you get your loan from an independent private bank or other investor. Or maybe you wouldn't go to college at all. What makes you believe you're entitled to an education in the first place?
dennist3hmenace 1 year ago
@ebaumsdidit that has skyrocketed the price of college tuition, if it didnt exist colleges would have to give much more competitive prices to students because they wouldnt be able to afford it. its that program itself that has turned the college system from education to a money making scheme
winnah2314 1 year ago
@ebaumsdidit Some people work and go to school
informationrevolt 1 year ago
@ebaumsdidit
Student loans would be cheaper if they were provided by the free market.
Salladsdressing 1 year ago
@Salladsdressing No.
watermelonygoodness 1 year ago
@Salladsdressing My student loan caps at 7,000 dollars a year being paid back. Any loan you get from the government beyond that is absolved by the government so the most you will owe if you graduate on time is 28,000 dollars for a degree that likely costs more than that. The free market will not offer me this.
watermelonygoodness 1 year ago
@Salladsdressing Oh please.
Give your head a great big shake.
wmg111 1 year ago
@Salladsdressing
loans ARE provided by the free markets...all private financial institution(provided you have the right credit score) offer student loan and they are anything but cheap...
siliedy1975 1 year ago
@ebaumsdidit I feel like most of Ron Paul's younger supporters are either unaware of his fiscal conservatism and what it means for their student loans, or come from wealthy families and don't understand what it's like to need one.
watermelonygoodness 1 year ago
@ebaumsdidit If it wasn't the Communist-in-chief your student loan would still be in the hands of private banks where it should be.
HoldingOnToLiberty 1 year ago
@ebaumsdidit Nice name you got there
GodofGrunts 1 year ago
Don't ask the goverment for shit... sure.....lets turn this shit into the wild wild west again.
gallomex13 1 year ago 11
@gallomex13 Yeah, RP missed the boat on that one. He's cool, and obviously believes in his own message. But this particular idea is social suicide.
giarcnella66 1 year ago
@gallomex13 Why not take that money you spend on sales tax income tax house tax tax tax tax and invest it and take care of yourself? We could let private industry pave roads rather than the government. Create private sector jobs. Remove the wellfare state and take care of yourself.
informationrevolt 1 year ago
@informationrevolt we need a ying and yang......the problem here is that the yang (corporations) buy out the ying (the goverment) and the real issue here is that no matter who paved that road we the people will lose money regardless......because the united states goverment doesn't give goverment contracts to small companies because the rich friend of a senator or governor has a company that paves roads and as a favor they give all the contract to one company and that is his.
gallomex13 1 year ago
@gallomex13 I would prefer the Wild West to 1984 buddy
numbah1pinoy 1 year ago
@gallomex13 Really? So the Wild Wild West wasn't so wild anymore when the people started asking "the government for shit"?
Glad to know that was the reason...Here I was all this time thinking it was the lack of reliable, and speedy communication over long distances, harsh terrain. Coupled with the fact that the area was in the process of being settled, and people were always on the move, and the popoulation was thin and spread out over thousands upon thousands of untouched land. LOL
EmptyBottleTherapies 1 year ago
@gallomex13 you mean the mild west, that solved lots of problems just fine without government and had a lower crime rate then comparable Eastern states.
Houshalter 1 year ago
@JASONNHENCHMENN Ha ha ha ha... he is pretty good in a debate but for the most part he is a sub-par speaker, especially when he talks foreign policy. I get what he is saying but he stumbles all over his words. Seemed impromptu. I think the issue is he has so many ideas going through his head that his words come out all jumbled ha ha ha
OneTruthBoy 1 year ago
i used to respect Ron Paul, i never agreed with everything he said, but i respected the man. this is just bat-shit crazy. opting out of the whole government? you better not drive on the roads or breathe the clean air and drink clean water. but not bitch when immigrants come over the border, better get ready for another terrorist attack since no one will be watching. and wtf are they going to do with that 10% of your income? if that's not a tax and it doesnt go to the gov, what the hell is it?
ArtFart001 1 year ago
@ArtFart001 who says we wouldn't have clean air and water if the government didn't over see it? Couldn't a private organization or corporation do the job just as efficiently?
OneTruthBoy 1 year ago
@OneTruthBoy emphatically no. are you dumb or just not paying attention? it's the private corporations that are polluting the water and air b/c that allows them to have higher profit margins. efficiency? fuck that! i'm looking for sustainability. there is no clean air and water worldwide w/o gov intervention. fact.
ArtFart001 1 year ago
@JASONNHENCHMENN opting out of America is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.
themightylex 1 year ago
@UBSCARED We don't have our liberty and it has been assaulted many times. When have their ideas been tried???? Only thing sinking the economy is the Government but more specifically the Federal Reserve
OneTruthBoy 1 year ago
What a nut job. Paul's medical career benefited from the experience he got as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force. Has he offered to give that back because it came from the government?
conradjulian 1 year ago
I dont agree with many of Ron Paul's views, especially on financial policy. But man, I respect him. He has integrity and stands by his words.
redriverhautbois 1 year ago
@DidYouJustMakeThatUp They aren't going to create jobs. To do so would require they go against their own talking points. Also the way the government creates jobs is through Liberal policies they HATE.
SpitfireOFatj 1 year ago
Fuck this old man,
yomamma228 1 year ago
Don't ask the government for anything? Not roads, or police, or fire fighters, or libraries, or museums, or public education, or workman's compensation if I get injured and can't keep working, or unemployment benefits/social security to prevent the economy from being unstable, or any fiscal/monetary policy to prevent deep recessions?? Why don't we just throw away the constitution, bring back the Articles of Confederation and all secede from the Union!! USA! USA
TopGunOriginal 1 year ago