Ron Paul Hype

[bzbatl]

Originally Posted by Khet

As I said, I'm not a democrat

Funny, neither are any of the candidates that you support.

They're called Socialists.

[EEfz6]

Originally Posted by Khet

For corporate control I was thinking of something along the lines business ethics. Such as a setting a minimum wage one can live on (democrats have already passed this recently),

I will just respond to this part, because it is the most contradictory of your statements. You can not believe in individual freedom, and believe this. It violates the freedoms of the employer. Minimum wage jobs are not for people to live on. Someone should be paid what the market decides. If someone can do the same job as you and will do it for less, they should be allowed to do that job. Want to earn more, make yourself more valuable. I don't work for minimum wage. There is a reason. Due to the skills I have developed, my time is worth more. My employer is free to pay someone less to do my job if he desires. I am also free to find other work if i feel I am being paid less then I deserve. That is freedom on both of our parts.

[Khet]

I don't think I'm making myself clear. I'll be a bit more blunt about it: I don't think employers should have as much freedom as they do. I'm not an advocate of freedom for all; man AND business. The only freedom I care about is outside the business world. That is why I keep saying personal freedom and economic freedom, and not just freedom. I don't believe in a cutthroat business world were we have employers seeing just how low they can go and retain employees. Maybe to you that means freedom; to me it means chaos.

Also, I think this needs to be repeated; socialism =/= communism. If you feel you must label me then go ahead and call me a socialist. But think about your motives. Is avarice driving your political beliefs?

[Choco]

quite simple really....

our gov't isn't capable of helping the people, nor do they want to....they've proved this time and time again.

democrats prefer socialism as a means of controlling the people. it has absolutely nothing to do with every american having health care.

[PacoPepe]

Originally Posted by Choco

quite simple really....

our gov't isn't capable of helping the people, nor do they want to....they've proved this time and time again.

democrats prefer socialism as a means of controlling the people. it has absolutely nothing to do with every american having health care.

+1 the more you get the people dependent on the goverment the easier they are to control and you keep the power. Socialism fails every time it is tried (we'll skip the history lesson b/c if you're smart enough to post in a forum you're smart enough to do a little research).

It's not the government's job to provide for everyone. It is our own. Personal responsibility. If you are working a minimum wage job it is either a) you don't have what it takes to get a better job; or b) you won't do what it takes to get a better job whether it be more training/education or a change in geopgraphy.

I'm all for helping people who can't help themselves....that's what private charity is for (not the govn). The rest of you minimum wage whingers get off your lazy butts and improve your situation.

[bzbatl]

Originally Posted by Khet

I don't think I'm making myself clear. I'll be a bit more blunt about it: I don't think employers should have as much freedom as they do. I'm not an advocate of freedom for all; man AND business. The only freedom I care about is outside the business world. That is why I keep saying personal freedom and economic freedom, and not just freedom. I don't believe in a cutthroat business world were we have employers seeing just how low they can go and retain employees. Maybe to you that means freedom; to me it means chaos.

Wait, companies run themselves?

Or the free man is allowed to be free, unless he runs the business, then he's only sort of free, but with rules on how free he can be.

Or the business is free if it doesn't have any free people running it, so that way it's free to be fair because no free men have free reign over what happens.

But when you're in a business, you're not free anymore, because you have laws on how free you can be, so therefore you're no longer free, but after you're done with work you're free again, as long as you're not patronizing a business that isn't free, because they're not free to sell whatever they want to you at whatever price they think is fair... so it should probably just be free. Or maybe only free to people who are poor and can't afford it.

Also, I think this needs to be repeated; socialism =/= communism. If you feel you must label me then go ahead and call me a socialist. But think about your motives. Is avarice driving your political beliefs?

My motive is to point out that you supported socialized healthcare and show that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

I don't believe I labeled you, but if I had to, I'd call you a Communist.

[bush]

Originally Posted by Khet

Also, I think this needs to be repeated; socialism =/= communism. If you feel you must label me then go ahead and call me a socialist. But think about your motives. Is avarice driving your political beliefs?

No, I think you're being labeled a socialist because that's the political agenda you seem to be pushing.

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck...

I'm not one to fall into policial labels, but redistribution of wealth is a socialist concept.

The first theories which came to hold the term "socialism" began to be formulated in the late 18th century, and were termed "socialism" early in the 19th century. The central beliefs of the socialism of this period rested on the exploitation of those who labored by those who owned capital or rented land and housing. The abject misery, poverty and disease to which laboring classes seemed destined was the inspiration for a series of schools of thought which argued that life under a class of masters, or "capitalists" as they were then becoming to be called, would consist of working classes being driven down to subsistence wages. (See Iron law of wages).

[Choco]

i brought out the tags.....sorry if i touched a nerve.

[bush]

Rule #47:

No apologies allowed in P&R.

[bzbatl]

Originally Posted by Choco

i brought out the tags.....sorry if i touched a nerve.

What kind of pussy French bullshit is this?

Banned from P&R.

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by Khet

For corporate control I was thinking of something along the lines business ethics. Such as a setting a minimum wage one can live on (democrats have already passed this recently), limiting massive executive level wages and perks, auditing to prevent under-the-table workers, some other stuff I can't think of atm I don't advocate anything that would drive up prices. I just think that those who do all the actual work should get their share of the profits.

These are policies that would drive up prices that you are advocating. You need to learn something about economics.

Originally Posted by Khet

As far as socialist health care, it really depends on what sort of system is set up. If it was totally controlled by the government I can see how that would stifle innovation. As it is, medical bills are often absurdly high and insurance companies are conniving bastards. They operate for profit -- otherwise they wouldn't exist. I do see why drug companies charge what they do; they have to pay for research costs. The problem with prescription medication is the pharmacy markup on generics. A prescription I have been getting filled every month costs $75 (generic) at every pharmacy chain in the area. Then I found out Costco charges $17 for the same damn thing. Side effect for those with insurance: higher cost as well. Prescription markups are obscene. Some companies will behave ethically whether they are forced to or not. That is very commendable. As for the rest....

No it doesn't. Socialist systems all wind up in the same place, as the fundamental concept is flawed.

So buy it at Costco. Duh. And if more people do that, the other pharmacies will have to lower their prices to compete. Market forces work. No government oppression required.

Originally Posted by Khet

Do you see where some control here would benefit all? Excluding stockholders of course but I could care less about them anyway. I'm not talking about totally socialized medicine here. Research takes money. I'm all for that obviously. What I am not for is exec and shareholder max profit at the expense of everyone else.

Prevention or punishment of monopoly abuse of power or of cartels is a legitimate government function. Prevention or punishment of excessive pollution, or of dangerously defective products, is a legitimate government function. Beyond that, pretty much no.

And your statement of disdain for stockholders again shows your ignorance of economics. That's where the money comes from for this stuff. Regulation that destroys stockholder value will cause the stockholders to invest their money in different ways, and then the whole industry collapses.

Why does America no longer have a significant steel industry? Because the unions, using the same arguments you posit here, drove the costs too high for the industry to survive, and the investors rationally pulled out and the whole industry collapsed, leaving only a small remnant that is mostly supported by government corporate welfare. This is not a model we want to repeat with our remaining industries.

Again, I suggest you learn about economics. Take care to avoid "learning" from Marxists who don't understand it either -- probably the Chicago or Austrian schools of economics are your best choices; they're the ones that have proven to be in closest connection with reality, meaning predictive of what actually happens economically when you insititute a situation or policy.

PhilB

[Choco]

Originally Posted by bush

Rule #47:

No apologies allowed in P&R.

Originally Posted by bzbatl

What kind of pussy French bullshit is this?

Banned from P&R.

maybe some emoticons would've helped....

[Khet]

Originally Posted by PacoPepe

I'm all for helping people who can't help themselves....that's what private charity is for (not the govn). The rest of you minimum wage whingers get off your lazy butts and improve your situation.

I don't make minimum wage. But you and I need the people who do. Grocery cashiers, fast-food workers, waiters, etc. Is having to pay someone $7.50 an hour really that bad?

Originally Posted by PhilB

These are policies that would drive up prices that you are advocating. You need to learn something about economics.

Limiting huge pay gaps would drive up prices? How? Forget that and everything else though. I can live with things as they are if monopoly laws and all that are enforced better with the exclusion of the health care business. Maybe all the rest really is just a crazy dream.

So what if the health care business has to deal with government restrictions? Done right(partial gov funding, a lot more control), the only people affected negatively would be those in it for the money. Hmm, should we cater to those in need of health care or those wanting max profit? Give me a valid reason(wanting the freedom to gouge is not valid) why universal health care is a bad idea. I don't care how other countries are doing it. There are many ways to create universal health care.

Originally Posted by PhilB

So buy it at Costco. Duh. And if more people do that, the other pharmacies will have to lower their prices to compete. Market forces work. No government oppression required.

It doesn't work like that. If you have insurance that makes all generics $5 are you going to go out of your way to find a Costco? No. The Costco pharmacy here gets very little buiness compared to the gougers since they are a little further out of the way. Who ends up footing the higher bill? You and everyone else with insurance.

Originally Posted by bzbatl

I don't believe I labeled you, but if I had to, I'd call you a Communist.

You are just skimming my posts because you *know* you're right and there's no need to hear differing tactics. If you actually read them it's clear I'm not a communist.

Originally Posted by Choco

democrats prefer socialism as a means of controlling the people. it has absolutely nothing to do with every american having health care.

I like to see my tangible results from my tax money. What's with the extreme paranoia about democrats? What do they stand to gain by setting up universal health care? You want actual results with tax money? Don't vote republican. You won't get anything accomplished with a kinda libertarian president and a democratic congress and senate. As i'm sure you know, the president doesn't have the power of a dictator, though GW is working on that. Ron Paul won't save you from those evil taxes. He'll just impede progress.

Finally, none of this even matters. No republican, even Ron Paul, has a chance. The mass majority of US citizens are not cutthroat businessmen, and they are tired of the same old shit.

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by Khet

I don't make minimum wage. But you and I need the people who do. Grocery cashiers, fast-food workers, waiters, etc. Is having to pay someone $7.50 an hour really that bad?

Limiting huge pay gaps would drive up prices? How? Forget that and everything else though. I can live with things as they are if monopoly laws and all that are enforced better with the exclusion of the health care business. Maybe all the rest really is just a crazy dream.

So what if the health care business has to deal with government restrictions? Done right(partial gov funding, a lot more control), the only people affected negatively would be those in it for the money. Hmm, should we cater to those in need of health care or those wanting max profit? Give me a valid reason(wanting the freedom to gouge is not valid) why universal health care is a bad idea. I don't care how other countries are doing it. There are many ways to create universal health care.


It doesn't work like that. If you have insurance that makes all generics $5 are you going to go out of your way to find a Costco? No. The Costco pharmacy here gets very little buiness compared to the gougers since they are a little further out of the way. Who ends up footing the higher bill? You and everyone else with insurance.

You are just skimming my posts because you *know* you're right and there's no need to hear differing tactics. If you actually read them it's clear I'm not a communist.

I like to see my tangible results from my tax money. What's with the extreme paranoia about democrats? What do they stand to gain by setting up universal health care? You want actual results with tax money? Don't vote republican. You won't get anything accomplished with a kinda libertarian president and a democratic congress and senate. As i'm sure you know, the president doesn't have the power of a dictator, though GW is working on that. Ron Paul won't save you from those evil taxes. He'll just impede progress.

Finally, none of this even matters. No republican, even Ron Paul, has a chance. The mass majority of US citizens are not cutthroat businessmen, and they are tired of the same old shit.

Okay, so the bottom line is that you have no idea how economics works, how socialism doesn't work, and what freedom means. Go learn some stuff, and I'll talk to you in about ten years.

PhilB

[PacoPepe]

Originally Posted by Khet

I don't make minimum wage. But you and I need the people who do. Grocery cashiers, fast-food workers, waiters, etc. Is having to pay someone $7.50 an hour really that bad?

In a word, yes. Govn-mandated wages hurt business and drag down the economy. As a small business owner I can attest to this first-hand. I don't "need" any of what you mentioned. No waiter/waitress/bartender at any of the establishments I frequent makes minimum wage and that is partly due to the fact that I take care of the people who bring me food and beverages, and partly due to me not eating fast food.

PhilB already touched on this one quite eloquently: economics. You should read up on the subject. (+1 Phil...see we agree on at least two topics: 2nd ammendment and this one )

Originally Posted by Khet

So what if the health care business has to deal with government restrictions? Done right(partial gov funding, a lot more control), the only people affected negatively would be those in it for the money. Hmm, should we cater to those in need of health care or those wanting max profit? Give me a valid reason(wanting the freedom to gouge is not valid) why universal health care is a bad idea. I don't care how other countries are doing it. There are many ways to create universal health care.

huh? "done right" WTH???? The government under both parties has proven it cannot manage any such program effectively (e.g. Social Security). Have you flown anywhere lately? Are you one of those who "feel safer" because the government took over airport security?

There are NO ways to create "universal health care" outside of socialized medicine (read: those of us who pay a good chunk of our hard-earned money in taxes foot the bill by paying an even higher percentage of our hard-earned money)

Originally Posted by Khet

It doesn't work like that. If you have insurance that makes all generics $5 are you going to go out of your way to find a Costco? No. The Costco pharmacy here gets very little buiness compared to the gougers since they are a little further out of the way. Who ends up footing the higher bill? You and everyone else with insurance.

I pay over $700/month for health insurance for my wife and myself with no children. That is straight out of my pocket. No big company to help foot the bill. You're actually touching on one valid point here in that the whole healthcare industry needs an overhaul, but NOT by socializing medicine.

Originally Posted by Khet

I like to see my tangible results from my tax money.

You never will. Get the government out of your life and your wallet.