On Safety Nets

[jfsfrnd]

The government gave land to farmers. William Penn gave land to the Mennonites and Quakers so they could come to America.

[Aspetta17]

"If it truly helped the poor people, it'd be a little hard to argue against it"

I wish I could go back to the 1800s and talk to some poor industrial sweat shop slave and ask them if they think some extra money per month for food would help.

We've done a piss poor job of creating a fair safety net (one that DOESN'T give people something for nothing), but It's more than "a little hard to argue against" the concept of a safety net altogether.

[Aspetta17]

I wonder what Ron Paul thinks about Wal-Mart. 2nd biggest employer in the country (next to the fed gov't) WM Employees are usually parents w/ dependent children, and they get paid just over min wage. Every 200 person Supercenter is responsible for an estimated $300,000 in federal taxes for WELFARE (every single year) and meanwhile they rake in a cool $12bn in profits per year.

To fix this, we just need to deregulate all private enterprise (and don't you DARE ask Wal-Mart to pay a living wage)

[kellyfurness77]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." According to the Declaration of Independence why do we have gov? We have gov to secure these unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. This is the scope of gov and should be it's focus.

[kellyfurness77]

For a turn around we need to follow the Constitution. It will take time but could be done in a matter of 2 to 4 years. Gov will be much smaller and much more limited in scope. The economy would boom as a by product of a free society with no Gov meddling or red tape. Per The Declaration of Independence & the Constitution the only reason Gov exists is to protect liberty. All too often today the Gov strips liberty away rather than safeguarding it. The Declaration of Independence says:

[kellyfurness77]

So if you wish to contribute of your own free will and choice to a particular church or charity "system" you are free to do so. I do. Gov role is not to steal from one set of people and give to another set. We are free to donate to charity or not. That's the beauty of what we were founded on. The U.S.S.R./Germany/Cambodia/Cuba­/Laos/North Korea/Vietnam etc. already have tried this and failed miserably. Socialism doesn't work. Communism does't work. Fascism doesn't work. Freedom & Liberty do.

[cosmicviewer477]

Okay, so given the current economic structure that we live in, how would you suggest a turn around. Should it be rapid or gradual? If a turn-around occurs, what will it look like on the other end? In other words, when the dust clears and the "libertarian" concepts are being played out, what will "government" look like? And, by this I mean on all levels, i.e.: local/municipal, state and federal.

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

Actually, the "socialism" of Germany works rather well these days, especially considering the standard of living is considerably higher than America's. But maybe that's because it's no longer the socialism of the past which sought to own and manage many aspects of what would otherwise be a free market. Conversely, today's socialism mostly seeks to ensure that everyone has a roof over their heads, something to eat and the opportunity to climb out of poverty.

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

In absence of ensuring that cheap housing and "welfare" exists, people would need to crawl into the forest, build some type of hovel and hunt game--I would support that! But, unfortunately, either somebody already owns the forest or it's public parkland. For sure, nobody would appreciate stepping in some forest dweller's feces during a morning walk. So furnishing the would-be hunter-gatherer with a 30m^2 efficiency apt. is seen as the more hygienic solution, insofar as society is concerned.

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

The transportation system is another "socialism" in Germany. Someone, like me, who isn't sufficiently "evolved" enough to drive a car every day can choose to ride bike on the comprehensive bike infrastructure. Everywhere; it's the law. It's also a good way to save about 5K/year.

Contrast with America's "homesteader" urban planning and crude road "system," which has crowded-out all other forms of trans., leaving the low-wage pedestrian straggling along in the exhaust of the "enlightened" ones.

[kellyfurness77]

No they wouldn't. If the government didn't waste 50% or more of your tax money it would be put back in your pocket. When it's in your pocket you get to choose how and what to spend it on and NOT have 50% go to waste. There fore you could donate to churches and charities etc that would fill the void to help those that need housing, clothing, and food assistance. I'm tired of the "If the government doesn't do it it won't get done" argument. B.S. There are better and more efficient alternatives.

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

I would see charity as being well suited for one who not only can't function in the modern economy, but who's also not capable of living according to some ancestral paradigm (e.g., hunting, gathering, building tee-pees, etc.).

Conversely, for a person who IS capable of the latter, I don't see why he should be relegated to the status of "lowly charity recipient" when clearly someone else has stolen his means to survival--namely, his access to land. Shouldn't such person be remunerated?

[kellyfurness77]

I'm not sure I fully understand you. What would you suggest as far as remuneration goes?

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

Well, to understand it, you have to think in terms of a geoist (or georgist) left-libertarian principle: a person has a natural right to the usage of land, and anyone who denies him that right owes compensation (e.g., via prop taxes, easements, etc.). IMO, the German system I described above adheres to that principle rather well.

This contrasts to the winner-takes-all-land-and-prov­ides-charity-for-the-rest, right-libertarian principle; a system that can only lead to one outcome: revolution.

[LibertaerUeberAlles]

Revolution?

Ok, here's an example: It is known that land in Russia was owned by a small number of people. It is speculated that this was a major contributing factor which allowed the Judeo-Bolshevik regime to garner support, and imprison and ultimately slaughter between 20M and 40M Christian kulaks.

Contrast with Finland wherein land was divided relatively equally, centuries prior, by King Gustav. Very little support for Communism there; a rebellion was easily quelled.

[kellyfurness77]

This country was founded on the idea of freedom & liberty. Freedom to keep the fruits of your labors. Freedom to donate to the needy or not to. Freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Gov sole role is to protect freedom and liberty. There is no mention of "systems" or helping the needy anywhere in our Constitution or other founding documents. However, we are all free to donate to the poor as we wish or wish not too. Churches and charities can fill this void much better than Gov.

[kellyfurness77]

Yes the private sector bottom line is profit. Just as it is with every employee. Who would go to work tomorrow if there was no pay? The gov bottom line is spend more so we get funding next year. If we have a surplus at the end of the year we won't get as much funding next year. Let's spend all we have. No, paying taxes into the "system" is not part of a sacrifice for being part of this society. Where in the Constitution (the law of this land) does it talk about paying for any kind of system?

[cosmicviewer477]

I disagree with his notions here. Don't blame the sentiment, blame the way the programs were run. There are many not-for-profit banks/lenders who offer loans to poor families to buy homes, and their foreclosure rates are as low as 2% (even in this economy). safety-net-programs can work; it's just a matter of how they're implemented.

[kellyfurness77]

There's a BIG difference between not-for-profit or charitable banks/lenders insuring loans to poor credit families to buy homes and the government stealing tax dollars to do it. The reason why the programs were run poorly is because they are government programs and fail by design. The market creates lean and mean by design.  The gov creates fat and bloated by design. I'm all for lean and mean charities and non-profits, however government is wasteful by definition.

[cosmicviewer477]

Well, Kellyfurness77:

If by "market", you mean the private sector, I disagree. The private sector can become bloated, as well. Corporations, public and not-for-profit organizations are all susceptible to becoming bloated and top-heavy because in a Capitalistic society, the model is growth, growth and more growth. One could argue that the reason the Big-Three auto companies are failing is because of their bloatedness. When any institution becomes bloated, change takes too long: private and public

[kellyfurness77]

No the private sector can't become too bloated in a free market system or it will fail and go bankrupt. The big 3 are failing because of there bloatedness.When this happens the solvent buy the BK assets from the insolvent and continue on lean and mean. In a free market system change doesn't take long at all. That's the beauty of it. Change happens fast in free markets. They are quick to adjust to current market conditions. Government is just the opposite and is slow to change if ever.

[cosmicviewer477]

Now, Kelly, don't get me wrong. I do believe in the power of the private sector to bring about positive change in society, but at the end of the day, that's not their bottom-line. Their bottom line is profit. The gov't's bottom line is its people. Finally, wouldn't you agree that paying taxes into the system is sacrifice for being a part of this society? What are your thoughts on that?

[TheUnitedFreak]

big (hugs) for you! ^_^

thank you for fighting for our freedom! ^_^

[DaveDoggOwns]

Safety Nets: Capital accumulated through violence.

[Squirelbutt]

goto ronpaul(dot)com search ron paul endorses chuck baldwin..

A New Alliance by Ron Paul

"

"Ive thought about the unsolicited advice from the Libertarian Party candidate, and he has convinced me to reject my neutral stance in the November election. Im supporting Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate."

[Squirelbutt]

He did. Mainly even though Baldwin would have a little chance of winning. Having the numbers voting for the constitutional party gives it status Like R,D,I for the next election So they dont have to go through getting thousands of signatures and can become another choice faction. And actually might get media coverage

[theropingeffect]

Ron Paul is not telling anybody to vote for anyone. Ron Paul supporters are going to make their voices heard for Ron Paul.

[Squirelbutt]

Thats true he isnt telling everyone to vote for anyone. But he is endorsing Chuck Baldwin.

[theropingeffect]

Sounds like a conflict of interest. Chuck Baldwin already endorsed Ron Paul.

[Squirelbutt]

How so? Chuck is running on the constitutional party. Ron Paul is the champion of the constitution.

[theropingeffect]

Ron Paul is the only person who uses the Constitution as his guidebook.

[chriscolumbo323]

wooooooo yaaa im down with that baby

[AryaStarkFan]

This is a good argument for "safety nets don't help the poor, they help the rich." But the fact must be explained why "lack of safety nets helps the poor."

Bob Barr 2008, Ron Paul 2012

[greenowls45]

yes is no. food causes hunger.

[lepppppp]

Dr. Paul is asking his supporters NOT to write him in as he is endorsing constitutional candidate Chuck Baldwin. and any write ins for Dr. Paul will just dilute Baldwins votes.

[theropingeffect]

Rubbish

[kevowillis]

Props to Dr. Paul. He always nails it..

[crazycatfguy]

Social security was a mandatory insurance program that Americans were forced to pay premiums to whether they wanted to or not. Now that corrupt politicians have looted the fund of something like 43 trillion dollars they want to make it sound like welfare. If the government wants to end SS give everyone their money back with interest.

[greatvaluemustard]

Thank you.

Just like the "no child left behind" shenanigans. Half a trillion dollars to administrators and lawyers. Nothing for the children.

[MrDeppness]

Ron Paul is one of the smartest and most dignified men in the world. Thank you for sharing your wisdom with us on these important matters!!!!

[ISLAMisGlory]

@MrDeppness you and he are assholes

[ParapaDrifter]

how about bailouts in the form of food... not dollars

[MooseOfReason]

That's still taking away food from someone and giving it to someone else. It's not right.

[ParapaDrifter]

not really.. food rots and people can eat only so much of it... It is morally deplorable to allow food to rot because its yours while there are those starving in the streets.

"Freeganism"

Production is so advanced that food can be free... this is basic food I'm talking about.

How much food do we make that isn't even ate.

[ParapaDrifter]

good advice from Dr. Know!

[bebop54]

right on ....as always ron !!!...

[pilocrates]

i am really enjoying this series of videos!

[InTheSticks1881]

I don't believe they can stop the credit market from totally freezing up. Drastic action will be needed and no matter how much they print it won't help. It seems that the only way out is to nationalize the most of the banks. Hello socialism and tyranny.

[aires12345678]

in simplist term what ron paul is trying to say were we all are screwed!

[NSResponder]

I forget who it was that said it first, but the poor are a gold mine. They provide endless funding for bureaucrats and academics to "study" their plight. If you simply take all the appropriations for public relief and divide it by the number of people living below the poverty line, we're spending enough to bring them all above the poverty line, if we just gave it to them directly.

-jcr

[rodeocowboy]

Ron, as usual, you are right on!

[StepUPNJ]

Ron speaking the Truth once again!

[BestFuckingChannel]

Ron Paul... right again. Will they ever learn?

[Andy120290Returns]

Go Dr. Paul!

[freedomcorp]

What about the government official safety net?

Bush took advantage of the corporate safety nets, bankrupting and leaving companies. Now, he bankrupts and wrecks the country only to walk away again. Cut his net and let him fall into the hands of the people!

[ConstitutionSupportr]

Thank you very much Dr. Paul.

Looking forward to more statements.

[mousey1952]

Yes we need elaboration..there are so many people in desparate poverty that there is going to have to come help from somewhere

[myrelative]

that's a really bad example.

that's an argument against giving irrational incentives to market forces through legislation.

not against safety nets.

there's a huge difference between forcing a lender to give money to everybody and a social security safety net which is paid for by taxes.

[ConstitutionSupportr]

There is no such thing as a social security safety net.

It is failing all ready and can not be propped up. Taxpayers are on the hook for a record $57.3 trillion in federal liabilities, or nearly $500,000 per household, a USA Today analysis found.

How can that be taxed?

The simple fact is social security was a failure from the start.

I bribe from heartless politicians who wanted re-election not caring it would destroy this country in the long run.

Simply put. You are your only safety net

[ConstitutionSupportr]

Only if the government stops interfering will everyone prosper.

Of course its a big picture thing,

we are talking Monetary reform, ending government regulation of the free market, getting our military out of the 130+ countries they are stationed in(at a 1Trillion plus dollar a year cost)

The original promise of this country was that if we work hard we could find a way to live a decent life, its welfare programs, income taxes, government regulations, that have ruined this promise.

[rodeocowboy]

I agree with you Constitution Supportr. It's time to get back to basics and stop with the welfare (our second greatest expenditure) and being the world's police (our greatest expenditure).  I know that if we cut the welfare expenditure by 2/3'rds and the kept our military at its current size and scope, but kept them at home to guard our borders (thus eliminating the need for border patrol), we could give every man, woman, and child $5,000 (so a family of three would get $15,000) cash.

[ConstitutionSupportr]

I love the internet because there are many people here that know whats going on.

I live in Taxachusetts where everyone(almost) thinks its the governments duty to wipe our arses.

I hear ya cowboy it gets disturbing when we realize if the government just left everything alone that it would free up maybe 2-3 trillion dollars a year that could be in the free market

Everyone and Anyone, Join Campaign for Liberty

[myrelative]

I wasn't argueing for safety nets. I would do so to some degree, but I don't plan to elaborate on that in a youtube comment.

all I was saying is that ron's argument was kind of stupid and there are much better arguments against excessive safety nets.

you named a few.

[jokertim777]

When he says "it never works" he's talking about in an economic sense. However, that's not the true goal of the safety nets. They are designed to create a group of voters that are beholden to a politician to keep the gravy coming in. In that sense, they work rather well. When you have a system where politicians are bought by business and voters are bought by politicians you end up where we are now. Everybody is motivated by what they are given, not what they earn.

[jdtrickster4]

Right on the money! The only thing it rewards is "OPPORTUNISM!" I just wanted to add this last word to your very articulate message because I feel it reflects the attitude mostly of those we send to supposedly "represent" us. And this has been the case, generally speaking, for quite some time. Very few are what this statesman, Dr. Ron Paul exemplifies. He's the epitome of a good politician; though I hate to call him that cause that word leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[marco114]

Keep pouring it on Ron, you are 100% on the money.

[BabybooR33]

lol.... 'nets' for our enslavement so that we dont break free from the matrix/system....... = )-

[BabybooR33]

our government will fight to their last breathe to terrorize/control us..... what draconian worshipers ......

[txballoonman]

Dr. Mary Ruwart's book "Healing Our World

In an Age of Aggression" is a great source for this subject. There is a free on-line edition.

ruwart*com

[auamoti]

thx for the suggestion

[txballoonman]

You're welcome. Her specialty is medicine as she has many years of experience in drug development.

[MrCleanRunner2]

Thank you congressman Paul! As usual you are spot on, and humble to boot.

However, this point is the one that liberals keep coming back to over and over again. They just don't seem to understand that we are all being tricked, our good instincts of wanting to help people being used against us.

So perhaps you could elaborate a little bit more on this subject?

[StubbornCanary]

Thank you Sir :)