@caucasianjake - communism has never existed on this earth - government takeover of industry (socialism) and bankrupting the country is exactly what killed the soviets.
@TruthHasComeTHC Don't bother, the world is full of stupid people.
I actually hope Ron Paul doesn't win, because, the bubble won't be deflated in an orderly manner, we're way too deep into this shit. It'll be painful and it'll be blamed on him and his views. The best you can do is preparing yourself and educating your friends and family. People have to take charge of their situation now before they get flushed down the toilet with caucasianjoke. After that it's much easier to change things.
@TruthHasComeTHC For your information, government takeover of industry is not socialism. Please read it's history before you make these assumptions. Secondly, the soviets considered themselves Communists, not Socialists.
@cipher2004 it doesn't matter what they called themselves, they weren't communists - they had a totalitarian, authoritarian regime...no "commune" involved.
so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
I think thats close enough to government takeover of industry
@TruthHasComeTHC Kind of sad that you think a dictionary definition pretty much sums up what it means. This just solidifies the idea that you DON'T really understand it's concept and purpose. You insult me with this, i thought for a second you were smart.
@cipher2004 I find it laughable you think the denotation of a word is irrelevant or inconsequential. This isn't poetry class, - you don't get any points for connotation. That definition clearly establishes (rightfully) socialism as a process of nationalizing industries. Of course, the only way to implement nationalization is via government takeover - government is the only body in a position of oversight and power. Also, feel free to offer some kind of evidence instead of just disagreement.
@TruthHasComeTHC you find it laughable! look, it is obvious that you don't read, you copy and paste, let me help you out. Please read: Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations, Theory of Moral Sentiment, and Frederick Engels, First find out who he is because i am pretty sure you don't know. Then we can have a discussion. It is so sad in this in age, that we have people like you (posers) who pretend to know by outlining a paragraph without understanding the depth of its meaning.
@michaelwuzthere Ponzi schemes run surpluses before they fail. Definition of a Ponzi scheme: "A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation." Social Security meets that definition.
@objectivistathlete Social security isn't expected to fail any time soon, unless republicans shut it down for being too successful. If you want to stop spending, how about telling politicians to stop taking money out of the social security fund?
@michaelwuzthere Besides being a Ponzi scheme and being inherently unstable, Social Security does have negative economic effects. The payroll taxes that fund it increase unemployment and the very existence of such a program decreases the incentive to save, thereby reducing the rate of technological progress and capital accumulation.
@objectivistathlete That's a load of nonsense, and any respectable source will tell you the same. Social Security is completely stable, and does have a surplus. It does not increase unemployment - what a joke to say it does! It's been in existence since the 1930's, and we've seen booming economies since then (when taxes were FAR higher for the rich, and FAR less for the poor). Honestly, what a complete joke.
@michaelwuzthere Actually, the fact that the payroll taxes that fund Social Security reduce employment is so well-known and accepted that it's taught in beginner's economics courses. Check out Mankiw's "Macroeconomics" (the most widely used macro textbook) if you don't believe me. It's simple economics: you tax more of something, you get less of it. In the case of the payroll tax, it literally is a "sales tax" on labor, thereby reducing demand for it.
@michaelwuzthere Now, regarding Social Security itself, is it in a surplus right now? Sure it is. But that doesn't prove much; after all, many Ponzi schemes run surpluses for a while (that's how they gain steam in the first place). The fact of the matter is that Social Security is unsustainable for the long haul and it, along with Medicare, will eventually bankrupt this country unless "entitlements" are reformed.
@michaelwuzthere Now, regarding post 1930s growth - trying to correlate that growth with the existence of Big Government is laughable. First of all, the fact that there was a 20 year boom in economic growth after a 20 year drought is not really surprising. Secondly, whether or not there really was a significant post-War boom is questioned by many economists who point out that the quality of macroeconomic data has worsened due to the changing composition of the US economy.
@objectivistathlete The fact that you have to make 3 full-length comments over such nonsense just shows your lack of ability to make a convincing argument. Trying to argue that we should end a program that keeps millions out of poverty and runs in a surplus with no evidence outside of mere speculation that it would become unsustainable, is not going to be taken seriously by any *human* being.
@michaelwuzthere I had to make 3 full-length comments because you made three nonsensical, unsupported claims: that payroll taxes don't cause unemployment, that Social Security is sustainable, and that post-WW2 economic growth was the cause of Big Government policies. The only reason you aren't trying to refute my points is because you know you can't refute the truth. BTW, Social Security goes bankrupt in 2042 according to the SSA. EVERY point of yours thus far has been incorrect
@michaelwuzthere I forgot to mention: Social Security and Medicare do not "keep millions out of poverty." In 1992 (couldn't find more recent stats), the median net worth of the 75+ age group was $87000. That's compared to $44700 median net worth for the 35-44 age group.
@objectivistathlete Anyone who calls himself "objectivist" and expects to be taken seriously when using the term "Big Government policies" will never be taken seriously by respectable society. You haven't disproven anything, only made false assertions using the christian style of abusing science - make a conclusion, THEN find evidence for it. I don't know why I even entertain this argument, being that you follow the Ayn Rand mode of thought (a long-running joke in the academic community).
@michaelwuzthere LOL you can insult me, Ayn Rand, make baseless assertions against Objectivism, and do whatever else you want but that does not change the facts that I have presented and you have failed to refute.
@CiscoKid6565 -- Campaign for Liberty has grown to more than half a million members in just over three years, and we've been able to provide key allies like Rand Paul with the grassroots backup they need to stand up for freedom. Consider joining. It's free.
Uhh. Do 4 hours of research on soc. sec. like i did people, it is exactly what Bernie Maddof did...PONZI. To deny it is like denying water exists. Research before you react. And America is turning socialist, thats why I'm taxed at 30% and my money is disbursed to poor welfare, food stamp recipients.
the structure of Social security is a ponzi scheme. Those got into the program first get the most out of it people paying into it now are getting screwed.
Apparently there is a bloc of people without fundamental understanding of economics terms and it isn't Rand. What's wrong with socialism, is in the most simple of terms -is that it does not help in the prosperity or well-being of it's people because they lose the ability to choose for themselves. Central control does not work for humans, although it works well for some domestic farm animals, seriously I mean no offense.
@Theliberty411 Although Norway, Denmark and Sweden are all excellent examples of successful socialist countries, even Canada is leaps and bounds ahead of the states in almost every area of it's infrastructure (except of course the jobs program of the US military) while employing more socialistic policies.
@Gibson29 Regardless of taxes, federal policies, etc; at the end of the day the higher quality of life and more secure economy speaks for itself. Find me one person in Canada who is of Middle / poor income, sick, elderly, or a student who thinks they would be better off in the USA.
Certainly not myself. The only people prospering in America at the moment are trust fund babies and CEOs.
I was born into a middle class family in Toronto and was sick a lot as a child. Had I been born in America, there's little question I would be dead by now. Because my family could never have afforded the treatments.
I've seen Ron Paul supporters cheer on the death of impoverished people who couldn't afford health care in United States. Cold blooded, man.
@Theliberty411 Sure. Norway, Denmark, and my personal favorite: Sweden! These countries are successfully implementing socialist ideals like free education and free healthcare. They've also managed to consistently end up top five in the list of happy citizens in any list you wish to look up. Sweden avoided both World Wars, and have been war free for over 200 years. And Sweden was the first country to officially end it's part in the Great Depression. You ask me, Sweden is a model for success.
to those scream “It’s a ponzi scheme!” so is the stock market & ur insurance policies. U invest in each of these w/ expectation of profit. each of these situations, a system of perpetual funding is devised w/ a promise of future profitable expectations The difference is this SS is not operated with the intent to profit, but insurance co & stocks is. SS is NOT an unfunded liability well funded by workers gov is the unfunded liability but covers this by stealing the retirement investments
@Leonid3s It's the stock market and the corporations it represents that have killed America. Stock market money is "something for nothing" money. The investment class sat back and cashed their checks every month while corporations moved overseas.The couldn't say "no" to something for nothing. Jobs will never return. Capitalism has sucked America dry. Now the Koch Bros ( aka The Tea Party) are cleaning up the rest.
Stock market is investment. I buy 10K shares of a small company, they take that money and use it to support/grow the business. In return for my investment, they offer to pay me interest on the investment I make. In this sense I am acting much like a bank. I give them money, charge interest and reserve the right to sell my investment to another investor.
The "something for nothing" crowd would better describe the entitlement recipients/advocates.
There are three values in politics: Equality, Order, Liberty.
Equality requires trampling on both Order and Liberty.
Order requires sacrificing Liberty OR Equality.
(i.e. everyone go through cavity searches OR profile/deport muslims)
Liberty is the only one that achieves all three. By creating a free society, it naturally learns the best ways to protect itself (order) and creates more wealth for everyone.
Healthcare is a form of socialism. I don't want the government to take care of me, I am better off without them. I don't care about the healthcare debate, the US is doomed as is any other country that thinks it can finance pipe dreams like healthcare out of thin air. The real issue is the return to honest money and the inevitable destruction of money as debt/credit. People who gorge themselves on junk food and cigarettes deserve to die, just natural selection. Live free or die trying!
wait, so social security isnt when the money you put it gets funneled to a person who already put in? so the money for the beneficiaries doesnt come from the investors?
what he says is true. it's a big intergenerational transfer. you can end it now, fund it properly or just wait for it to blow up and then blame someone.
not everybody was lucky enough to have a rich daddy who could pay for our undergraduate and medical schools. meritocracy my ass. all of these 'tea party' members are just greedy, entitled, whiners who were provided with the right opportunities in life and now feel comfortable denying those same opportunities to others. evil, pure and simple.
@barifkin31 My dad's a Tea party member and he grew up in inner city Detroit. You can't say that because he's BUSTED HIS ASS to get where he is today. You should've seen his first house, it was the size of a shoebox! He never needed to depend on the government to get where he is today.
This man is not only wrong, he's a fucking menace. Social security, a safetly net for people when the get old, is a "bad investment...a bad idea"? 235 years of trying to learn from our mistakes and this asshole thinks going back to the days of "every man for himself" is the solution?! Pretty fucking thoughtless for a someone that eaned their M.D.
@judeseamus You get less than what you put in, that's why it's a bad investment. It would make more sense just to let seniors file under disability pay, that way younger working class citizens don't have to carry the full burden... and even if that didn't go over, we also have private senior homes to shelter and feed the elderly. But not once have I heard anyone in this video propose an every man for himself plan.
@judeseamus it's a terrible investment. It's just a transfer from young to old. If you think it's necessary than you should restructure it's no long scheduled to go bankrupt.
@judeseamus it's a terrible investment. It's just a transfer from young to old. If you think it's necessary than you should restructure so it's no long scheduled to go bankrupt.
@caucasianjake You better call Lenin and get him on the phone. He thought the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics was socialists, and needed a vanguard elite party until communism was achieved. Hmm..."Communist Party" stayed pretty elitist in the USSR. Where the line is between socialism & communism - in practice, since communism in theory = anarchy - is very fuzzy.
@MqCorey idiot, Lenin, Stalin and all the professed "Communists" never practiced true communism. It is only theoretical. No country in it's history has every practiced communism at its true nature. All of it was an excuse to control a people. How can socialism or communism exist if there is a dictator running the show???? by posting this question, i assume that you picked up a book, and did your research as to what communism and socialism is....
@cipher2004 Because that is the implication of communism. It's a cop out to say that Communism imagines the state withering away and all the New Communism Men (and women) producing and sharing for the good of the group, so it doesn't exist "if there is a dictator running the show" - even theoretically, there are no causal mechanisms to stop a deterioration to either anarchy or national socialism. As Hayek showed, Natl. Socialism & Communism have quite a bit in common by playing on atavism.
@MqCorey Correct, and as a result, to assume that its true definition is evil by nature is false. Communism's flawed philosophy is that it already assumes that a society can exits without the greed for power. What's funny is that Capitalism while being the most practical philosophy used in the world, and completely opposite to the views of communism, or socialism inevitably makes the same mistake. It assumes a society is without greed.
@cipher2004 No, Capitalism does explain how you get from Point A to Point B. Point A is either the chaos of warring individuals (Hobbes) or a group with thicker gemeinschaft norms that has yet to free the individual while letting that group become enmeshed in an extended order (Hayek). Point B is where "the worst of all the multitudes...did something for the common good" (Mandeville), achieved when products of human action (but not design) merge w/rule of law & a smaller state.
@MqCorey People assume they understand the teaching of capitalism by reading "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. Please read "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" and then you can define for me the "true meaning " of capitalism. To imply, does not necessary make it a fact.
@caucasianjake You are arguing semantics and meanings change, was Stalin's slogan in the 1920/30s not "socialism in one country". The basic principles in economics are the same and both systems will fail for the same reasons.
@caucasianjake The result of Socialism is Communism, obviously you don't understand what the senator is implying... the Soviet Union's socialist acts resulted in a communist nation. Don't criticize somebody if you can't comprehend the truth about the failure of socialism. Go learn something.
@BrandonJohnMorris Failure of socialism?? Look at any Scandinavian country in terms of economy, standard of living, education, health, life expectancy, infant mortality rate, etc. and tell me again that socialism is failure. You apparently need to learn something. Pure capitalism is the reason this country is in such shit right now. A mixture of the two, capitalism and socialism is the only way to go. The other top rated comment besides mine makes a good point. Got an argument for that? Doubt it
scandanvian countries are not a good example, their standard of living is much lower than the US, they have some of the world's LOWEST disposable income, they are also seeing massive emigration as college educated people are leaving those countries...also note that those countries wealth was created from natural resources and during their "free market days", it is also the only thng keeping them from becoming like Cuba much faster
@ImmortalDestructor so is your mom, going by your lack of understanding of what socialism means. it is direct transfer of wealth from one group to another. military are individuals directly hired by the government. apple and oranges. true any tax is of socialistic nature, but you say 3% tax to support military is no different than 40% tax to support military plus welfare? some fucking functioning brain you have.. stick with the easy career.
@ImmortalDestructor If you think the military is socialist you have a screw loose. Tell that to the 1 million dead americans who died fighting national socialism and left-wing socialism/communism.
Socialism requires means of production controlled "co-operatively" (last I check soldiers can't boss their sergeant around!). They also have a merit system (anti-socialist) where you get promoted, they have structure (rank) which is anti-"equality", etc. You need an education badly.
@ImmortalDestructor Since when is the military socialist? Military is something that basically burns money and military structures (hirachy, orders ...) are things that must be get rid off.
@ImmortalDestructor I am a veteran and am highly disgusted by your unfounded assertion that "the military is a Socialist organization." If the military is Socialist then why is there a rank structure? Why is promotion granted on a basis of merit? Why do you have your head up your ass?
@atchisrj1 The military is racist, that's a fact. And he's right in that military is socialist because you get free healthcare and a government sponsored education from it. Let's put it this way: It's more socialist than the private sector. And the private sector is what America prides itself on, so technically, the socialist military is unamerican. Or am I getting something wrong here...
@atchisrj1 are you kidding? the structure is question does not regard rank. The military structure being spoken about is social in nature, the way a soldier is being taken cared of by the military, dumb ass.
@cipher2004 "the structure is question does not regard rank."? What? Are you asking if rank is biased on merit? Yes it is. Why does it matter how they are taken care of? Besides the fact that they are treated not well enough/
@salbella50no if everything was privatized citizens would own their own wealth. The opposite of privatization is socialism. the one country that ever existed for the individual and him owning his own wealth was the one country that pushed the human race to the point we're at now. GOD DID NOT DO THIS. socialism did not do this. the reason we got to this point is because we had the right to work and keep our own wealth. giving people the incentive to create things that other ppl wanted.
That's the real problem with libertarianism or any utopian ideology: these are people who, in the words of Stephen Colbert, believe the same thing they did on Wednesday as they did on Monday, regardless of what happened on Tuesday.
@wvu05governments for the better part of history have all been the same. thats why the fathers wrote the constitution and made it difficult to change. thats why all the politicians don even bother with it. SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, MEDICADE ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL! i agree with what he says at the end, government has gotten to far out of control. abolish the whole thing let the states fend for themselves. that way if the socialists in your town are stealing your money at least you can go to texas.
@jsteel89 How is this in response at all to my direct point. Considering the fact that there is no direct response to the problem of libertarianism or utopian ideology being one that doesn't care about reality. The Constitution says that the purpose of government is to provide for the general welfare, and considering the fact that the poverty rate has plummeted since the 1920's, this shows that these three programs (one of which you misspelled) have provided for it.
@wvu05 part of history governments have all been***** limited charactors i had to skim my response. and spelling and punctuation really isnt my concern im worried more about the philosophy that im trying to explain. and i apologize maybe i didnt directly say what i meant. the federal government has only a couple of tasks it should be working at. defence, courts, interstate commerce. whatever power not given to the fed. gov. or prohibited to the states are the states choice. no matter what day.
What gets me about these people in America on the Right, is how they come up with all these neat little rationalizations about how "socialist" healthcare doesn't work, which sound clever in insolation only if you don't open your eyes an look at the rest of the world, where you can see that clearly it does. I smell a giant rat with his dialysis example about the UK, but even if it's true, look in the mirror. You don't have insurance, you die. Tens of millions with no healthcare: Great system!
You claim that social health works in other parts of the world while totally ignoring the fact that these countries with "working" social health systems are nearly bankrupt for the same reason the US is: the Keynesian economic model. It causes healthcare costs to be drastically inflated and facilitates the reactionary government-run healthcare systems that are too expensive to maintain. How socially responsible is it to get everyone dependent on a system that is destined to crash?
Wow this guy knows nothing. Public Health care is not "socialism." I live in Canada and I never heard of anyone getting denied care because "its too expensive." There are no "middle managers". Hospitals should be saving lives, not being run as a business! This guy is just spitting the same Capitalistic propaganda that is killing the United States.
Public health care is not socialism, but it is a social program, so you're kind of splitting hairs here. What you are calling capitalist is nothing of the sort. We haven't had free market capitalism in the US for a LONG time. What we have had is Keynesianism, as has Canada and most of Europe, and it's destroying our economies, hence all the global economic crises we've faced for the last several years.
@Yew424 If KY had no fed gov then yes. YES!! The state govt for KY is so hopeful. but the state I live in is not. Please God, we need a lil hope, before I use my hard work to buy my way out of this country. I would rather start out broke on a small strip of land in some unsettled area and be free, than live here. PS, I am a 24 yr old, who built a 2.3 million dollar house. I started at 16, with $0 in my pocket. If people like me are the ones who want out of the US, you tell me where it's headed.
However much you may either agree or disagree with them you have to admit that both he, and his father, have given a consistent message over the years.
Soc Sec funds are NOT government money. Those funds belong to we American workers who contributed for OUR retirement. See the attached video for documentation. Also, President Reagan left a report stating that the IRS pays zero bills. The URL is " youtube.com/watch?v=SFAAsCRonlg" . The search title is 3Statements-IRS.m4v . There is no space after the 3. My research and documentation are extensive.
With all his privatizing and "let's let the gov gamble with the social security fund" rhetoric, R.P. seems to forget just whose money belongs to who. Social security is OUR money that we've already been paying into for decades. We're not looking for a "hotter investment," kid. We just want to be sure that OUR money is still there when we retire. And I know it won't be if we let these little brats go play with it!
@themredweirdoshow when you say "little brats paly with it", you mean the private sector but what about the government???? don't you realize that the gov. has been playing with it? you see, the problem with gov. is that you give them the ultimate authority so they can scew people up and not be held acountable. Unlike the private sector ( in a free market, I mean) they can screw up some people but not for very long. governments are not GOD, just people.
@themredweirdoshow if things were different we could look for a hotter investment with the money that we payed into ss all our lives with. i would rather keep all of my money and put it in a savings account and let it accrue some interest. at least id get to keep ALL of the money i put in. maybe pay less taxes. and EARN something more with it rather than me losing out on it like we all are.
@liberalsAREbigZEROS But it is also a disability insurance plan: For those who don't make it to retirement, they at least have something coming in. And as for savings accounts, interest earned is never enough to stay equal with inflation, therefore the money LOSES real value over time. It would have to be invested, and anybody's guess as to whether the investment would be there or disappear when the company went bankrupt.
@themredweirdoshow we dont get back what we pay in. ss is broke and we know from the left saying that to keep it alfoat we need the illegals naturalized so we can shove 20 million more into the system paying us our money that the govt stole from us
@themredweirdoshow I think we should call those folks "privateers". They keep trying to steal away our social security by implying it's going broke. Why don't they ever want to look at raising the caps on the payroll SS tax?
@bodryn Exactly! It's already famous for being one of the VERY few input taxes that 90% of the country would gladly pay extra for, including me, but which the government won't take advantage of. They refuse to, not because they're not greedy (heh-heh), but because it would destroy their whole fake reason for stealing our SS money. They want to be able to claim, "Hey, SS is in bad shape, so we'll just have to 'FIX' it." Thanks but no thanks, guys - just raise the SS tax and get out of our face!
@themredweirdoshow Yeah, and by the way, the govt is already chiseling the SS recipients - there has not been a cost of living increase for 2 years in a row, despite big increases again in things like rentals, gasoline, etc. Same goes for disabled veterans living on veterans compensation. ND Rep. Earl Pomeroy wanted to do something about it, but he was defeated in the 2010 election. :-(
@jaguarclaw "one that is fair to all citizens and not just a few...one that guarantees all citizens with a standard of living"
That's the most laughable thing I have ever read.
And how do you suppose government achieve this?
You can't even have a dog in this country anymore without a armed state stooge coming to your door and people are still advocating government meddle some more...
If we can just tax everyone to get enough nannys we can take care of everything...
@davecorbitt --As opposed to irrational thinking and illogical thought? I will take "simplistic thinking", thank you very much. The latest from Rand Paul: watch?v=3m7iz__PJ5Y&feature=sub
@bodryn - No, "simplistic thinking", or as I like to call it, "effective focus" is an example of an ordered mind and is efficient; this means one has the ability to be proficient, whereas a "simple-minded" person could be described as one who does not possess enough knowledge to streamline their philosophies and be productive. This would typically associate the "simple-minded" person with being stagnant and unproductive, in the scholarly sense. Take liberals, for example. Morons.
@brokor1 If you think liberals are morons, you are clearly muddled in your thinking. I suppose Hitler had "effective focus" when he determined that Jews were the basic problem with society and had to be wiped out to create a better society. I think you may be caught up too much in simplistic word definitions for people. Every individual is more complex than you give them credit for. This concept, however, may be beyond your level of understanding....
@bodryn - Unlike yourself, I do not spend my time on YouTube insulting other posters. If you ever get around to making a valid argument, please let me know. I have no idea why you went on that rant about Jews and Hitler when all I did was make the assertion that Liberals were morons. Perhaps subconsciously you equated them with communists, the immortal enemy of the Nazi's? Well, in any case, good luck with that. RON PAUL FOR PREZ...AGAIN!
@brokor1 So you mean it's okay if you insult liberals, but not okay if I insult anybody? That's clearly a case of being able to dish it out, but not take it. I've heard about such people all my life. Anyway, I'd have to say you need to live and experience some more if you want to think clearly and comprehensively in order to make mature political judgments. You have to remember, no one person knows it all. Learn a little humility - you can learn something from anybody.
@brokor1 - I insulted in general fashion, but you are the one who made it personal. This is the difference, and it is insulting that you also cannot comprehend this. And thanks for your advice. I can assure you it is not necessary. And, for the record, I learned all the humility I care to when I served in Iraq. Have a nice day, kiddo.
You're saying the IDEAL form of education is a govt-run MONOPOLY...where children are FORCED against their and their parents' wills to attend...and which are funded by FORCING people (whether they have kids or not, or use the system or not) to pay for them?
You think a govt MONOPOLY is going to respond to the needs and wants of individual children/parents and provide a quality product--even though these individuals have ZERO bargaining power?
@jaguarclaw they do take an oath to uphold the constitution no more self appointed pay raises they should be paid like a average citizen and have same health care as average citizen
@jaguarclaw dont forget his private prison he has money invested in what a joke these things are common sense. the problem arnt having enough laws its getting the gov. to enforce them and not watch porn all day on the tax payers dime
@jaguarclaw it will be alot easier cleaning it up if we first reduce way to many zars and such i would say at least in half and we would still be doing good
@jaguarclaw once we get a fence built we would have city,county,state and fed. law enforcement headquarters where they could come and be legally integrated into the system you know photo/fingerprints then off to social security office to get ss# then off to dmv to get id. the ones that dont show up in a six week period will be deported when captured or turned in by law inforcement. Something like that but yes we need to hold all elected officials accountable for even there word
@jaguarclaw Oh one last thing religin = morales something seriously missing in our society today. Atheianism is a religion scientificaly speaking in structure just no morals
@jaguarclaw One problem the gov. and certain other people like george sorrows has bought off the majority of the scientific community so how can we trust anything they say. This is what happens when our gov. gets so corrupt and demorritized they would sell there young for a chance of getting realected or getting there retarded agenda passed it basically comes down to onr thing we need to be able to hold our politicians accountable and have term limits so they dont have time to get corrupt
@jaguarclaw I believe in government i think it has a very important role in our society but the gov. we have now is so corrupt letting wall street buy them and take it out on the people i would not allow our existing gov. to baby sit my dog.
@jaguarclaw Unions are a violation of the constitution they make buisness owners do things they might not want to do they also provide wages that destroy industries also if you dont like the way your employer treats you find a employer who likes your performance if you cant do that than you might want to look in the mirror and wonder why am i retarded.
@jaguarclaw i think they should be stopped the ones here now need to be leglized through 7 years probation if violated deported. Once again the gov. has failed deporting existing illegals would be to tramatic to family units. WE NEED A FENCE DUH
@jaguarclaw the federal gov. needs to stay out of our school system. Individual states need to decide what is being tought in there schools. Gov. uses our poor little kids shit to rob us of more taxes.
@jaguarclaw youre right about the parents and dont forget about the gov. role in destroying the family and turning the average home into a single parent enviroment using the welfare system it disgusts me what our gov. has done to the family and now they want to have our kids believe being gay is alright give me a break
Your latest reply to truthisStranger was pathetic and w/o points.
I'm not sure what govt-controlled education (you will be thrown in jail if the govt doesn't approve of how you educate your own child) has to do w/obesity.
You are so pathetic you can't even acknowledge the current education system is based totally on coercion.
I believe this clip was intended to make Rand Paul look bad but it actually was like a highlight reel in my mind.
JBourneID 1 month ago
Americans know less about socialism than Charlie Sheen does physics
wangsta25 1 month ago
@caucasianjake - communism has never existed on this earth - government takeover of industry (socialism) and bankrupting the country is exactly what killed the soviets.
TruthHasComeTHC 1 month ago
@TruthHasComeTHC Don't bother, the world is full of stupid people.
I actually hope Ron Paul doesn't win, because, the bubble won't be deflated in an orderly manner, we're way too deep into this shit. It'll be painful and it'll be blamed on him and his views. The best you can do is preparing yourself and educating your friends and family. People have to take charge of their situation now before they get flushed down the toilet with caucasianjoke. After that it's much easier to change things.
rustyrusky 1 month ago
@TruthHasComeTHC For your information, government takeover of industry is not socialism. Please read it's history before you make these assumptions. Secondly, the soviets considered themselves Communists, not Socialists.
cipher2004 1 month ago
@cipher2004 it doesn't matter what they called themselves, they weren't communists - they had a totalitarian, authoritarian regime...no "commune" involved.
so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
I think thats close enough to government takeover of industry
TruthHasComeTHC 1 month ago
@TruthHasComeTHC Kind of sad that you think a dictionary definition pretty much sums up what it means. This just solidifies the idea that you DON'T really understand it's concept and purpose. You insult me with this, i thought for a second you were smart.
cipher2004 1 month ago
@cipher2004 I find it laughable you think the denotation of a word is irrelevant or inconsequential. This isn't poetry class, - you don't get any points for connotation. That definition clearly establishes (rightfully) socialism as a process of nationalizing industries. Of course, the only way to implement nationalization is via government takeover - government is the only body in a position of oversight and power. Also, feel free to offer some kind of evidence instead of just disagreement.
TruthHasComeTHC 1 month ago
@TruthHasComeTHC you find it laughable! look, it is obvious that you don't read, you copy and paste, let me help you out. Please read: Adam Smith: The Wealth of Nations, Theory of Moral Sentiment, and Frederick Engels, First find out who he is because i am pretty sure you don't know. Then we can have a discussion. It is so sad in this in age, that we have people like you (posers) who pretend to know by outlining a paragraph without understanding the depth of its meaning.
cipher2004 1 month ago
Everything Rand Paul says here is true! Take Social Security, for example. It is meets the typical definition of a Ponzi scheme!
objectivistathlete 1 month ago
@objectivistathlete No, people pay into it and it runs on a surplus.
michaelwuzthere 1 month ago
@michaelwuzthere Ponzi schemes run surpluses before they fail. Definition of a Ponzi scheme: "A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation." Social Security meets that definition.
objectivistathlete 1 month ago
@objectivistathlete Social security isn't expected to fail any time soon, unless republicans shut it down for being too successful. If you want to stop spending, how about telling politicians to stop taking money out of the social security fund?
michaelwuzthere 1 month ago
@michaelwuzthere Besides being a Ponzi scheme and being inherently unstable, Social Security does have negative economic effects. The payroll taxes that fund it increase unemployment and the very existence of such a program decreases the incentive to save, thereby reducing the rate of technological progress and capital accumulation.
objectivistathlete 1 month ago
@objectivistathlete That's a load of nonsense, and any respectable source will tell you the same. Social Security is completely stable, and does have a surplus. It does not increase unemployment - what a joke to say it does! It's been in existence since the 1930's, and we've seen booming economies since then (when taxes were FAR higher for the rich, and FAR less for the poor). Honestly, what a complete joke.
michaelwuzthere 1 month ago
@michaelwuzthere Actually, the fact that the payroll taxes that fund Social Security reduce employment is so well-known and accepted that it's taught in beginner's economics courses. Check out Mankiw's "Macroeconomics" (the most widely used macro textbook) if you don't believe me. It's simple economics: you tax more of something, you get less of it. In the case of the payroll tax, it literally is a "sales tax" on labor, thereby reducing demand for it.
objectivistathlete 1 month ago
@michaelwuzthere Now, regarding Social Security itself, is it in a surplus right now? Sure it is. But that doesn't prove much; after all, many Ponzi schemes run surpluses for a while (that's how they gain steam in the first place). The fact of the matter is that Social Security is unsustainable for the long haul and it, along with Medicare, will eventually bankrupt this country unless "entitlements" are reformed.
objectivistathlete 1 month ago
@michaelwuzthere Now, regarding post 1930s growth - trying to correlate that growth with the existence of Big Government is laughable. First of all, the fact that there was a 20 year boom in economic growth after a 20 year drought is not really surprising. Secondly, whether or not there really was a significant post-War boom is questioned by many economists who point out that the quality of macroeconomic data has worsened due to the changing composition of the US economy.
objectivistathlete 1 month ago
@objectivistathlete The fact that you have to make 3 full-length comments over such nonsense just shows your lack of ability to make a convincing argument. Trying to argue that we should end a program that keeps millions out of poverty and runs in a surplus with no evidence outside of mere speculation that it would become unsustainable, is not going to be taken seriously by any *human* being.
michaelwuzthere 1 month ago
@michaelwuzthere I had to make 3 full-length comments because you made three nonsensical, unsupported claims: that payroll taxes don't cause unemployment, that Social Security is sustainable, and that post-WW2 economic growth was the cause of Big Government policies. The only reason you aren't trying to refute my points is because you know you can't refute the truth. BTW, Social Security goes bankrupt in 2042 according to the SSA. EVERY point of yours thus far has been incorrect
objectivistathlete 1 month ago
@michaelwuzthere I forgot to mention: Social Security and Medicare do not "keep millions out of poverty." In 1992 (couldn't find more recent stats), the median net worth of the 75+ age group was $87000. That's compared to $44700 median net worth for the 35-44 age group.
objectivistathlete 1 month ago
@objectivistathlete Anyone who calls himself "objectivist" and expects to be taken seriously when using the term "Big Government policies" will never be taken seriously by respectable society. You haven't disproven anything, only made false assertions using the christian style of abusing science - make a conclusion, THEN find evidence for it. I don't know why I even entertain this argument, being that you follow the Ayn Rand mode of thought (a long-running joke in the academic community).
michaelwuzthere 1 month ago
@michaelwuzthere LOL you can insult me, Ayn Rand, make baseless assertions against Objectivism, and do whatever else you want but that does not change the facts that I have presented and you have failed to refute.
objectivistathlete 1 month ago
@objectivistathlete You lost all respect when you began a comment with "LOL" and then victimised yourself.
michaelwuzthere 1 month ago
@michaelwuzthere You lost all respect when you weren't capable of presenting one argument backed up by fact.
objectivistathlete 1 month ago
@objectivistathlete Go read history if you need evidence.
michaelwuzthere 1 month ago
This dude is 100% correct, are people seriously not agreeing with these statements. His views are common sense/financial fact. Grow up haters!!
CiscoKid6565 1 month ago
@CiscoKid6565 -- Campaign for Liberty has grown to more than half a million members in just over three years, and we've been able to provide key allies like Rand Paul with the grassroots backup they need to stand up for freedom. Consider joining. It's free.
vechorik 1 month ago
Uhh. Do 4 hours of research on soc. sec. like i did people, it is exactly what Bernie Maddof did...PONZI. To deny it is like denying water exists. Research before you react. And America is turning socialist, thats why I'm taxed at 30% and my money is disbursed to poor welfare, food stamp recipients.
jhhdfvbhsdh 2 months ago
the structure of Social security is a ponzi scheme. Those got into the program first get the most out of it people paying into it now are getting screwed.
ferrozm 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Rands Right. as usual.
ZoneTelevision 2 months ago
speaking the truth, over a decade ago. thank you rand.
mjb9982 2 months ago
Apparently there is a bloc of people without fundamental understanding of economics terms and it isn't Rand. What's wrong with socialism, is in the most simple of terms -is that it does not help in the prosperity or well-being of it's people because they lose the ability to choose for themselves. Central control does not work for humans, although it works well for some domestic farm animals, seriously I mean no offense.
maniswil2 2 months ago 4
wow! look at the dates on this stuff!!!! its all happening now
vinyltv 3 months ago
@caucasianjake says the poor person...
obrienjoshplayer 3 months ago
Comment removed
mtshastaportal 4 months ago
@Theliberty411 Although Norway, Denmark and Sweden are all excellent examples of successful socialist countries, even Canada is leaps and bounds ahead of the states in almost every area of it's infrastructure (except of course the jobs program of the US military) while employing more socialistic policies.
Gibson29 4 months ago
@Gibson29 Regardless of taxes, federal policies, etc; at the end of the day the higher quality of life and more secure economy speaks for itself. Find me one person in Canada who is of Middle / poor income, sick, elderly, or a student who thinks they would be better off in the USA.
Gibson29 4 months ago
@Gibson29
Certainly not myself. The only people prospering in America at the moment are trust fund babies and CEOs.
I was born into a middle class family in Toronto and was sick a lot as a child. Had I been born in America, there's little question I would be dead by now. Because my family could never have afforded the treatments.
I've seen Ron Paul supporters cheer on the death of impoverished people who couldn't afford health care in United States. Cold blooded, man.
EuchridEucrow1 4 months ago
@Theliberty411 Sure. Norway, Denmark, and my personal favorite: Sweden! These countries are successfully implementing socialist ideals like free education and free healthcare. They've also managed to consistently end up top five in the list of happy citizens in any list you wish to look up. Sweden avoided both World Wars, and have been war free for over 200 years. And Sweden was the first country to officially end it's part in the Great Depression. You ask me, Sweden is a model for success.
caucasianjake 4 months ago
to those scream “It’s a ponzi scheme!” so is the stock market & ur insurance policies. U invest in each of these w/ expectation of profit. each of these situations, a system of perpetual funding is devised w/ a promise of future profitable expectations The difference is this SS is not operated with the intent to profit, but insurance co & stocks is. SS is NOT an unfunded liability well funded by workers gov is the unfunded liability but covers this by stealing the retirement investments
AntiYouist 6 months ago
@AntiYouist
Basic differences between stock market and social security.
The only way I can make a dime in social security is to live long enough to draw it. I can make money day one, if I am lucky, with the stock market.
I am free to NOT participate in the stock market. I am required, under penalty of Law, to participate in the social security system.
My stock market holdings can be passed to my children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren, ad nauseum. SS can not.
Leonid3s 6 months ago
@Leonid3s It's the stock market and the corporations it represents that have killed America. Stock market money is "something for nothing" money. The investment class sat back and cashed their checks every month while corporations moved overseas.The couldn't say "no" to something for nothing. Jobs will never return. Capitalism has sucked America dry. Now the Koch Bros ( aka The Tea Party) are cleaning up the rest.
TheLakewind 6 months ago
@TheLakewind
Stock market is investment. I buy 10K shares of a small company, they take that money and use it to support/grow the business. In return for my investment, they offer to pay me interest on the investment I make. In this sense I am acting much like a bank. I give them money, charge interest and reserve the right to sell my investment to another investor.
The "something for nothing" crowd would better describe the entitlement recipients/advocates.
Leonid3s 6 months ago
By the way, equality is the biggest joke ever.
It's never existed and never will.
There are three values in politics: Equality, Order, Liberty.
Equality requires trampling on both Order and Liberty.
Order requires sacrificing Liberty OR Equality.
(i.e. everyone go through cavity searches OR profile/deport muslims)
Liberty is the only one that achieves all three. By creating a free society, it naturally learns the best ways to protect itself (order) and creates more wealth for everyone.
Cyrus255 6 months ago
Healthcare is a form of socialism. I don't want the government to take care of me, I am better off without them. I don't care about the healthcare debate, the US is doomed as is any other country that thinks it can finance pipe dreams like healthcare out of thin air. The real issue is the return to honest money and the inevitable destruction of money as debt/credit. People who gorge themselves on junk food and cigarettes deserve to die, just natural selection. Live free or die trying!
hathigmonorow 6 months ago
wait, so social security isnt when the money you put it gets funneled to a person who already put in? so the money for the beneficiaries doesnt come from the investors?
oJKBo 7 months ago
what he says is true. it's a big intergenerational transfer. you can end it now, fund it properly or just wait for it to blow up and then blame someone.
andrelebaron 7 months ago
not everybody was lucky enough to have a rich daddy who could pay for our undergraduate and medical schools. meritocracy my ass. all of these 'tea party' members are just greedy, entitled, whiners who were provided with the right opportunities in life and now feel comfortable denying those same opportunities to others. evil, pure and simple.
barifkin31 8 months ago
@barifkin31 My dad's a Tea party member and he grew up in inner city Detroit. You can't say that because he's BUSTED HIS ASS to get where he is today. You should've seen his first house, it was the size of a shoebox! He never needed to depend on the government to get where he is today.
maddog4it 8 months ago 2
Did he really say people in England are denied dialysis and die? What a liar.
Blueslide 8 months ago
This man is not only wrong, he's a fucking menace. Social security, a safetly net for people when the get old, is a "bad investment...a bad idea"? 235 years of trying to learn from our mistakes and this asshole thinks going back to the days of "every man for himself" is the solution?! Pretty fucking thoughtless for a someone that eaned their M.D.
judeseamus 8 months ago 2
@judeseamus You get less than what you put in, that's why it's a bad investment. It would make more sense just to let seniors file under disability pay, that way younger working class citizens don't have to carry the full burden... and even if that didn't go over, we also have private senior homes to shelter and feed the elderly. But not once have I heard anyone in this video propose an every man for himself plan.
goph000 8 months ago
@judeseamus it's a terrible investment. It's just a transfer from young to old. If you think it's necessary than you should restructure it's no long scheduled to go bankrupt.
andrelebaron 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@judeseamus it's a terrible investment. It's just a transfer from young to old. If you think it's necessary than you should restructure so it's no long scheduled to go bankrupt.
andrelebaron 7 months ago
I smell piss
serpentineflame 8 months ago 6
@serpentineflame Then you should probably change your pants....
maddog4it 8 months ago
@maddog4it touche maggot
serpentineflame 8 months ago
socialism isn't communism Rand. Communism is the reason the soviet union failed, not socialism
caucasianjake 8 months ago 5
@caucasianjake You better call Lenin and get him on the phone. He thought the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics was socialists, and needed a vanguard elite party until communism was achieved. Hmm..."Communist Party" stayed pretty elitist in the USSR. Where the line is between socialism & communism - in practice, since communism in theory = anarchy - is very fuzzy.
MqCorey 5 months ago
@MqCorey idiot, Lenin, Stalin and all the professed "Communists" never practiced true communism. It is only theoretical. No country in it's history has every practiced communism at its true nature. All of it was an excuse to control a people. How can socialism or communism exist if there is a dictator running the show???? by posting this question, i assume that you picked up a book, and did your research as to what communism and socialism is....
cipher2004 3 months ago
@cipher2004 Because that is the implication of communism. It's a cop out to say that Communism imagines the state withering away and all the New Communism Men (and women) producing and sharing for the good of the group, so it doesn't exist "if there is a dictator running the show" - even theoretically, there are no causal mechanisms to stop a deterioration to either anarchy or national socialism. As Hayek showed, Natl. Socialism & Communism have quite a bit in common by playing on atavism.
MqCorey 3 months ago
@MqCorey Correct, and as a result, to assume that its true definition is evil by nature is false. Communism's flawed philosophy is that it already assumes that a society can exits without the greed for power. What's funny is that Capitalism while being the most practical philosophy used in the world, and completely opposite to the views of communism, or socialism inevitably makes the same mistake. It assumes a society is without greed.
cipher2004 3 months ago
@cipher2004 No, Capitalism does explain how you get from Point A to Point B. Point A is either the chaos of warring individuals (Hobbes) or a group with thicker gemeinschaft norms that has yet to free the individual while letting that group become enmeshed in an extended order (Hayek). Point B is where "the worst of all the multitudes...did something for the common good" (Mandeville), achieved when products of human action (but not design) merge w/rule of law & a smaller state.
MqCorey 3 months ago
@MqCorey People assume they understand the teaching of capitalism by reading "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. Please read "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" and then you can define for me the "true meaning " of capitalism. To imply, does not necessary make it a fact.
cipher2004 3 months ago
@caucasianjake You are arguing semantics and meanings change, was Stalin's slogan in the 1920/30s not "socialism in one country". The basic principles in economics are the same and both systems will fail for the same reasons.
DukeofWellington91 2 months ago
@DukeofWellington91 because capitalism is proving to be great for everyone huh? Jackass..
caucasianjake 2 months ago
@caucasianjake Oh I am sorry I was not aware I had claimed the system we have now is capitalism, which since you mention it, it isn't.
DukeofWellington91 2 months ago
@caucasianjake The result of Socialism is Communism, obviously you don't understand what the senator is implying... the Soviet Union's socialist acts resulted in a communist nation. Don't criticize somebody if you can't comprehend the truth about the failure of socialism. Go learn something.
BrandonJohnMorris 2 months ago
@BrandonJohnMorris Failure of socialism?? Look at any Scandinavian country in terms of economy, standard of living, education, health, life expectancy, infant mortality rate, etc. and tell me again that socialism is failure. You apparently need to learn something. Pure capitalism is the reason this country is in such shit right now. A mixture of the two, capitalism and socialism is the only way to go. The other top rated comment besides mine makes a good point. Got an argument for that? Doubt it
caucasianjake 2 months ago
@caucasianjake
scandanvian countries are not a good example, their standard of living is much lower than the US, they have some of the world's LOWEST disposable income, they are also seeing massive emigration as college educated people are leaving those countries...also note that those countries wealth was created from natural resources and during their "free market days", it is also the only thng keeping them from becoming like Cuba much faster
jayda5956 2 months ago
What's wrong with socialism? The military is a socialist organization and you support them.
ImmortalDestructor 8 months ago 6
@ImmortalDestructor so is your mom, going by your lack of understanding of what socialism means. it is direct transfer of wealth from one group to another. military are individuals directly hired by the government. apple and oranges. true any tax is of socialistic nature, but you say 3% tax to support military is no different than 40% tax to support military plus welfare? some fucking functioning brain you have.. stick with the easy career.
spyletu 6 months ago
@ImmortalDestructor If you think the military is socialist you have a screw loose. Tell that to the 1 million dead americans who died fighting national socialism and left-wing socialism/communism.
Socialism requires means of production controlled "co-operatively" (last I check soldiers can't boss their sergeant around!). They also have a merit system (anti-socialist) where you get promoted, they have structure (rank) which is anti-"equality", etc. You need an education badly.
Cyrus255 6 months ago 2
@ImmortalDestructor Since when is the military socialist? Military is something that basically burns money and military structures (hirachy, orders ...) are things that must be get rid off.
Victim85 6 months ago
@ImmortalDestructor I am a veteran and am highly disgusted by your unfounded assertion that "the military is a Socialist organization." If the military is Socialist then why is there a rank structure? Why is promotion granted on a basis of merit? Why do you have your head up your ass?
atchisrj1 5 months ago 3
@atchisrj1 The military is racist, that's a fact. And he's right in that military is socialist because you get free healthcare and a government sponsored education from it. Let's put it this way: It's more socialist than the private sector. And the private sector is what America prides itself on, so technically, the socialist military is unamerican. Or am I getting something wrong here...
caucasianjake 4 months ago
@atchisrj1 are you kidding? the structure is question does not regard rank. The military structure being spoken about is social in nature, the way a soldier is being taken cared of by the military, dumb ass.
cipher2004 3 months ago
@cipher2004 "the structure is question does not regard rank."? What? Are you asking if rank is biased on merit? Yes it is. Why does it matter how they are taken care of? Besides the fact that they are treated not well enough/
atchisrj1 3 months ago
@atchisrj1 How is the military funded?
proofbyevidence 2 weeks ago
@proofbyevidence Taxes. Are you stupid?
atchisrj1 2 weeks ago
@atchisrj1 Yes, sir. I'm afraid I am.
proofbyevidence 2 weeks ago
@proofbyevidence lol okay that was funny.
atchisrj1 2 weeks ago
@ImmortalDestructor mind=blown
sonnybrown 5 months ago
Keep on spewing that bullshit, Paul.
quasar953 8 months ago 6
@quasar953
your mom needs to keep on spitting my cum out!
Prsnhoot 8 months ago
@Prsnhoot Touche
quasar953 8 months ago
THE "RIGHT" WANTS EVERYTHING PRIVATIZED..SO THEY CAN CLEAN YOU OUT.....P.E.R.I.O.D!!!!1
salbella50 10 months ago 2
Comment removed
jsteel89 9 months ago
@salbella50no if everything was privatized citizens would own their own wealth. The opposite of privatization is socialism. the one country that ever existed for the individual and him owning his own wealth was the one country that pushed the human race to the point we're at now. GOD DID NOT DO THIS. socialism did not do this. the reason we got to this point is because we had the right to work and keep our own wealth. giving people the incentive to create things that other ppl wanted.
jsteel89 9 months ago
That's the real problem with libertarianism or any utopian ideology: these are people who, in the words of Stephen Colbert, believe the same thing they did on Wednesday as they did on Monday, regardless of what happened on Tuesday.
wvu05 10 months ago
@wvu05governments for the better part of history have all been the same. thats why the fathers wrote the constitution and made it difficult to change. thats why all the politicians don even bother with it. SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, MEDICADE ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL! i agree with what he says at the end, government has gotten to far out of control. abolish the whole thing let the states fend for themselves. that way if the socialists in your town are stealing your money at least you can go to texas.
jsteel89 9 months ago
@jsteel89 How is this in response at all to my direct point. Considering the fact that there is no direct response to the problem of libertarianism or utopian ideology being one that doesn't care about reality. The Constitution says that the purpose of government is to provide for the general welfare, and considering the fact that the poverty rate has plummeted since the 1920's, this shows that these three programs (one of which you misspelled) have provided for it.
wvu05 9 months ago
@wvu05 part of history governments have all been***** limited charactors i had to skim my response. and spelling and punctuation really isnt my concern im worried more about the philosophy that im trying to explain. and i apologize maybe i didnt directly say what i meant. the federal government has only a couple of tasks it should be working at. defence, courts, interstate commerce. whatever power not given to the fed. gov. or prohibited to the states are the states choice. no matter what day.
jsteel89 9 months ago
What gets me about these people in America on the Right, is how they come up with all these neat little rationalizations about how "socialist" healthcare doesn't work, which sound clever in insolation only if you don't open your eyes an look at the rest of the world, where you can see that clearly it does. I smell a giant rat with his dialysis example about the UK, but even if it's true, look in the mirror. You don't have insurance, you die. Tens of millions with no healthcare: Great system!
nomis101uk 11 months ago
@nomis101uk
i 100% agree with you the usa is so backwards sometimes lol
989lmao 10 months ago
@nomis101uk
You claim that social health works in other parts of the world while totally ignoring the fact that these countries with "working" social health systems are nearly bankrupt for the same reason the US is: the Keynesian economic model. It causes healthcare costs to be drastically inflated and facilitates the reactionary government-run healthcare systems that are too expensive to maintain. How socially responsible is it to get everyone dependent on a system that is destined to crash?
milkman52879 10 months ago
Yes, and he was right.
UberNoob33 11 months ago
Wow this guy knows nothing. Public Health care is not "socialism." I live in Canada and I never heard of anyone getting denied care because "its too expensive." There are no "middle managers". Hospitals should be saving lives, not being run as a business! This guy is just spitting the same Capitalistic propaganda that is killing the United States.
serrya69 11 months ago
@serrya69
Public health care is not socialism, but it is a social program, so you're kind of splitting hairs here. What you are calling capitalist is nothing of the sort. We haven't had free market capitalism in the US for a LONG time. What we have had is Keynesianism, as has Canada and most of Europe, and it's destroying our economies, hence all the global economic crises we've faced for the last several years.
milkman52879 10 months ago
Rand Paul is one of the few principled people in our government.
I might move to Kentucky.
Yew424 11 months ago 2
@Yew424 If KY had no fed gov then yes. YES!! The state govt for KY is so hopeful. but the state I live in is not. Please God, we need a lil hope, before I use my hard work to buy my way out of this country. I would rather start out broke on a small strip of land in some unsettled area and be free, than live here. PS, I am a 24 yr old, who built a 2.3 million dollar house. I started at 16, with $0 in my pocket. If people like me are the ones who want out of the US, you tell me where it's headed.
drrydog 10 months ago
@drrydog haha they will find you and steal from you land!!!!!!!! there's no hope i think. i want out of social security!!!!!!!
jsteel89 9 months ago
@jsteel89 kind of true.. about the stealing from land... lol anywho.. rand paul is actually pretty smart.
drrydog 9 months ago
His "fact" about dialysis in English is blatantly wrong. His other "observations" are either misleading are wrong as well.
svencub 11 months ago
However much you may either agree or disagree with them you have to admit that both he, and his father, have given a consistent message over the years.
mangoswiss 1 year ago
What a moron
jonathandtice 1 year ago
Soc Sec funds are NOT government money. Those funds belong to we American workers who contributed for OUR retirement. See the attached video for documentation. Also, President Reagan left a report stating that the IRS pays zero bills. The URL is " youtube.com/watch?v=SFAAsCRonlg" . The search title is 3Statements-IRS.m4v . There is no space after the 3. My research and documentation are extensive.
44forest44 1 year ago
With all his privatizing and "let's let the gov gamble with the social security fund" rhetoric, R.P. seems to forget just whose money belongs to who. Social security is OUR money that we've already been paying into for decades. We're not looking for a "hotter investment," kid. We just want to be sure that OUR money is still there when we retire. And I know it won't be if we let these little brats go play with it!
themredweirdoshow 1 year ago
@themredweirdoshow when you say "little brats paly with it", you mean the private sector but what about the government???? don't you realize that the gov. has been playing with it? you see, the problem with gov. is that you give them the ultimate authority so they can scew people up and not be held acountable. Unlike the private sector ( in a free market, I mean) they can screw up some people but not for very long. governments are not GOD, just people.
ivanjrt 1 year ago
@themredweirdoshow if things were different we could look for a hotter investment with the money that we payed into ss all our lives with. i would rather keep all of my money and put it in a savings account and let it accrue some interest. at least id get to keep ALL of the money i put in. maybe pay less taxes. and EARN something more with it rather than me losing out on it like we all are.
liberalsAREbigZEROS 1 year ago
@liberalsAREbigZEROS But it is also a disability insurance plan: For those who don't make it to retirement, they at least have something coming in. And as for savings accounts, interest earned is never enough to stay equal with inflation, therefore the money LOSES real value over time. It would have to be invested, and anybody's guess as to whether the investment would be there or disappear when the company went bankrupt.
bodryn 11 months ago
@themredweirdoshow we dont get back what we pay in. ss is broke and we know from the left saying that to keep it alfoat we need the illegals naturalized so we can shove 20 million more into the system paying us our money that the govt stole from us
liberalsAREbigZEROS 1 year ago
@liberalsAREbigZEROS Why not cut the cash flow to the US military?
vansterpartisten 1 year ago
@themredweirdoshow I think we should call those folks "privateers". They keep trying to steal away our social security by implying it's going broke. Why don't they ever want to look at raising the caps on the payroll SS tax?
bodryn 11 months ago
@bodryn Exactly! It's already famous for being one of the VERY few input taxes that 90% of the country would gladly pay extra for, including me, but which the government won't take advantage of. They refuse to, not because they're not greedy (heh-heh), but because it would destroy their whole fake reason for stealing our SS money. They want to be able to claim, "Hey, SS is in bad shape, so we'll just have to 'FIX' it." Thanks but no thanks, guys - just raise the SS tax and get out of our face!
themredweirdoshow 11 months ago
@themredweirdoshow Yeah, and by the way, the govt is already chiseling the SS recipients - there has not been a cost of living increase for 2 years in a row, despite big increases again in things like rentals, gasoline, etc. Same goes for disabled veterans living on veterans compensation. ND Rep. Earl Pomeroy wanted to do something about it, but he was defeated in the 2010 election. :-(
bodryn 11 months ago
what he said at 1:50 sounds a tad familiar
caddyshack12190 1 year ago
Many years later, and Rand still sticks to his guns! :)
bronxer78 1 year ago
God I love this guy
TRX450rYB240 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw "one that is fair to all citizens and not just a few...one that guarantees all citizens with a standard of living"
That's the most laughable thing I have ever read.
And how do you suppose government achieve this?
You can't even have a dog in this country anymore without a armed state stooge coming to your door and people are still advocating government meddle some more...
If we can just tax everyone to get enough nannys we can take care of everything...
BadSwineDOTcom 1 year ago
GO RAND PAUL!
bodybuilder444444 1 year ago
49 Nazi's dislike this video.
TimeWarp66 1 year ago
Simplistic thinking.
davecorbitt 1 year ago
@davecorbitt --As opposed to irrational thinking and illogical thought? I will take "simplistic thinking", thank you very much. The latest from Rand Paul: watch?v=3m7iz__PJ5Y&feature=sub
brokor1 1 year ago
@brokor1 Isn't simplistic thinking a lot like being simple minded?
bodryn 11 months ago
@bodryn - No, "simplistic thinking", or as I like to call it, "effective focus" is an example of an ordered mind and is efficient; this means one has the ability to be proficient, whereas a "simple-minded" person could be described as one who does not possess enough knowledge to streamline their philosophies and be productive. This would typically associate the "simple-minded" person with being stagnant and unproductive, in the scholarly sense. Take liberals, for example. Morons.
brokor1 11 months ago
@brokor1 If you think liberals are morons, you are clearly muddled in your thinking. I suppose Hitler had "effective focus" when he determined that Jews were the basic problem with society and had to be wiped out to create a better society. I think you may be caught up too much in simplistic word definitions for people. Every individual is more complex than you give them credit for. This concept, however, may be beyond your level of understanding....
bodryn 11 months ago
@bodryn - Unlike yourself, I do not spend my time on YouTube insulting other posters. If you ever get around to making a valid argument, please let me know. I have no idea why you went on that rant about Jews and Hitler when all I did was make the assertion that Liberals were morons. Perhaps subconsciously you equated them with communists, the immortal enemy of the Nazi's? Well, in any case, good luck with that. RON PAUL FOR PREZ...AGAIN!
brokor1 11 months ago
@brokor1 So you mean it's okay if you insult liberals, but not okay if I insult anybody? That's clearly a case of being able to dish it out, but not take it. I've heard about such people all my life. Anyway, I'd have to say you need to live and experience some more if you want to think clearly and comprehensively in order to make mature political judgments. You have to remember, no one person knows it all. Learn a little humility - you can learn something from anybody.
bodryn 11 months ago
@brokor1 - I insulted in general fashion, but you are the one who made it personal. This is the difference, and it is insulting that you also cannot comprehend this. And thanks for your advice. I can assure you it is not necessary. And, for the record, I learned all the humility I care to when I served in Iraq. Have a nice day, kiddo.
brokor1 11 months ago
@brokor1 ...YOU NEED TO BE IN A RUBBER ROOM...
salbella50 10 months ago
@salbella50 - WHOoOp, WHEEeE@! DING! Ddrrrrr.....BOOP.
brokor1 10 months ago
We shouldn't get rid of Medicare or Social Security. I disagree with Rand Paul on that, although I supported his candidacy for the Senate.
Edgehead10075 1 year ago
Ron Paul believes in God. You're kind of bashing your own guy by saying that.
Edgehead10075 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Rhand Paul is right on
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
Paul is the man
bajoverga 1 year ago 7
Rand Paul has been right for a long time!
constitutionfirst 1 year ago 30
@constitutionfirst his father has been right longer
goldsmithstudent 1 year ago 3
lol he even foretold the government buyin the stocks and bein largest stock holder in this clip
MrHippyLoc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
he is telling the truth if you look into it.
MrHippyLoc 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw SAID "I think the problem with education is not government..its parents, its the kids"
What a huge, stinking, pile of shit you are...blaming the VICTIMS of govt coercion for their plight...you're a truly sick fuck.
FOAD
SugarySweet100 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw i cant imagine how china or iran could possibly benifit us if they had the technology they arnt realy our bffs if you havnt noticed
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
@OregonOutlaw2000
Just to be clear:
You're saying the IDEAL form of education is a govt-run MONOPOLY...where children are FORCED against their and their parents' wills to attend...and which are funded by FORCING people (whether they have kids or not, or use the system or not) to pay for them?
You think a govt MONOPOLY is going to respond to the needs and wants of individual children/parents and provide a quality product--even though these individuals have ZERO bargaining power?
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 are you fuckin retarded and if so why arnt you in school yuk yuk you fuckin loser.
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
@OregonOutlaw2000
WTF..?
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 get the teachers union out of the picture thats what im saying its plain english can ya hear me
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
@OregonOutlaw2000
That would be a step in the right direction for sure.
Now stfu punk.
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 lol i got your punk hangin bitch oh and have a nice day
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
@OregonOutlaw2000
You're an ignorant twat...have a nice life bitch...
ashane77 1 year ago
@ashane77 HA HA HA what a loser
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw ok ill watch but it sounds were on the same page
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw yes but getting there with our gov. the way it is will be impossible
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw they do take an oath to uphold the constitution no more self appointed pay raises they should be paid like a average citizen and have same health care as average citizen
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw dont forget his private prison he has money invested in what a joke these things are common sense. the problem arnt having enough laws its getting the gov. to enforce them and not watch porn all day on the tax payers dime
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw it will be alot easier cleaning it up if we first reduce way to many zars and such i would say at least in half and we would still be doing good
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw once we get a fence built we would have city,county,state and fed. law enforcement headquarters where they could come and be legally integrated into the system you know photo/fingerprints then off to social security office to get ss# then off to dmv to get id. the ones that dont show up in a six week period will be deported when captured or turned in by law inforcement. Something like that but yes we need to hold all elected officials accountable for even there word
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw Oh one last thing religin = morales something seriously missing in our society today. Atheianism is a religion scientificaly speaking in structure just no morals
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw One problem the gov. and certain other people like george sorrows has bought off the majority of the scientific community so how can we trust anything they say. This is what happens when our gov. gets so corrupt and demorritized they would sell there young for a chance of getting realected or getting there retarded agenda passed it basically comes down to onr thing we need to be able to hold our politicians accountable and have term limits so they dont have time to get corrupt
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw I believe in government i think it has a very important role in our society but the gov. we have now is so corrupt letting wall street buy them and take it out on the people i would not allow our existing gov. to baby sit my dog.
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw Unions are a violation of the constitution they make buisness owners do things they might not want to do they also provide wages that destroy industries also if you dont like the way your employer treats you find a employer who likes your performance if you cant do that than you might want to look in the mirror and wonder why am i retarded.
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw i think they should be stopped the ones here now need to be leglized through 7 years probation if violated deported. Once again the gov. has failed deporting existing illegals would be to tramatic to family units. WE NEED A FENCE DUH
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
Rahnd Paul is a true patriot
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw the only good gov. is a small gov.
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw that reminds of the baby that was aborted and thrown out with the dirty laundry alive and left to die gov. funded abortions at work
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw yea i agree the sooner we can get the gov. out of our school system the better oh and get rid of the teachers union
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
Good luck Kentucky this guy is so arrogant and doesn't care about the little guy, you find out real soon
Crashmagnet2 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw the federal gov. needs to stay out of our school system. Individual states need to decide what is being tought in there schools. Gov. uses our poor little kids shit to rob us of more taxes.
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw youre right about the parents and dont forget about the gov. role in destroying the family and turning the average home into a single parent enviroment using the welfare system it disgusts me what our gov. has done to the family and now they want to have our kids believe being gay is alright give me a break
OregonOutlaw2000 1 year ago
@jaguarclaw
Your latest reply to truthisStranger was pathetic and w/o points.
I'm not sure what govt-controlled education (you will be thrown in jail if the govt doesn't approve of how you educate your own child) has to do w/obesity.
You are so pathetic you can't even acknowledge the current education system is based totally on coercion.
ashane77 1 year ago