Ron Paul: We're Broke and Already Over Fiscal Cliff

[One_Tycoon]

Well first and foremost We have to drastically cut the defense budget. If we can afford to keep welfare programs open transparency on the individuals requesting it and on governments allocation of the tax dollars meant for those programs. If social security can be maintained we cant borrow from it ever. That social security tax is for that and nothing else. Alot of people are gonna be kicked off of welfare programs. Its not up to government to provide all of the jobs but infrastructure is a government job and again transparency and less bureaucratic red tape are needed to maintain these jobs.

You sound like a trained politicians with the choice words you're using. But naturally I disagree.

I think the Federal Govt.'s # 1 priority and probably the only priority is national defense. Thus more lead way in the military spending dept. Of course it should be much leaner but just because you cut defense spending, doesn't mean you transfer that spending over to welfare and other programs. Quite the opposite.

If military is going to be smaller...welfare, social security and medicare should be even smaller if not extinct. The Social security trustfund has been spent...people take more out of it then it gets paid into with Payroll taxes.

If you wanna keep some social security for old folks, then Payroll taxes should be raised on the poor as well. If you remember....Obama and Dems cut Pay roll taxes even though it's supposed to fund SS and nothing else. Whenever they think about 'tax cuts' it's in the wrong department hurting the programs they claim to be in favor of.

[One_Tycoon]

Oh and infrastructure is a common liberal argument whenever they get defensive that some Anarchist will cut Govt. down to 0% spending. If only we didn't have a bloated govt. maybe tariff's could cover the cost of basic infrastructure and maybe a gasoline tax which is supposed to fund state infrastructure anyway.

[Canelo Phresh]

Oh and infrastructure is a common liberal argument whenever they get defensive that some Anarchist will cut Govt. down to 0% spending. If only we didn't have a bloated govt. maybe tariff's could cover the cost of basic infrastructure and maybe a gasoline tax which is supposed to fund state infrastructure anyway.

If government wants money for registering my damn vehicle than they better maintain the roads. if not than let more capable people maintain the roads. ive always been told that police firemen and infrastructure maintenance were the job of the government and if they do thos jobs well then they can keep my taxes where they for now until said problems are fixed. if they are incapable of this job then lower my taxes immediately.

[One_Tycoon]

If government wants money for registering my damn vehicle than they better maintain the roads. if not than let more capable people maintain the roads. ive always been told that police firemen and infrastructure maintenance were the job of the government and if they do thos jobs well then they can keep my taxes where they for now until said problems are fixed. if they are incapable of this job then lower my taxes immediately.

This is state by state spending. There is no national Fireman and Police that we all pay for. In certain parts of Tennessee they charge people a flat fee for Firemen services on a voluntary basis (since TN doesn't have a State income tax). If they don't want to pay that fee, then the Fire Dept. is not obligated to put out the fire which is what essentially happened once, and made head lines.

A guy called the Fire Dept, they came but found out he didn't pay the Fireman fee and they just watched his house burn down. Of course they didn't leave because his neighbors did pay the fee, and if the fire spread to his neighbors houses, the Firemen were gonna step in and put it out. I think this is great. It's very American, it's Capitalistic.

Ironically, this kills two birds with one stone as some loser isn't looking to join the Fire Dept. because he knows there will be endless benefits (welfare) and a big public pension at the end of it all, financed with a income tax. Instead it's a Fireman fee and the benefits to being a fireman are naturally limited. So only people who are truly passionate about putting Fire out will join. Not welfare cases who want to work 20 years and cash a Govt. check for the next 40 years.

[Canelo Phresh]

This is state by state spending. There is no national Fireman and Police that we all pay for. In certain parts of Tennessee they charge people a flat fee for Firemen services on a voluntary basis (since TN doesn't have a State income tax). If they don't want to pay that fee, then the Fire Dept. is not obligated to put out the fire which is what essentially happened once, and made head lines.

A guy called the Fire Dept, they came but found out he didn't pay the Fireman fee and they just watched his house burn down. Of course they didn't leave because his neighbors did pay the fee, and if the fire spread to his neighbors houses, the Firemen were gonna step in and put it out. I think this is great. It's very American, it's Capitalistic.

Ironically, this kills two birds with one stone as some loser isn't looking to join the Fire Dept. because he knows there will be endless benefits (welfare) and a big public pension at the end of it all, financed with a income tax. Instead it's a Fireman fee and the benefits to being a fireman are naturally limited. So only people who are truly passionate about putting Fire out will join. Not welfare cases who want to work 20 years and cash a Govt. check for the next 40 years.

Thats not a bad service if its maintained. I agree on public unions being to well financed. I believe congressmen senators and other elected officials are paid to much as well though. When the country was founded statesmanship was looked at as a burden and when necessary a responsibility that was gladly left when the term was over. I would love to see salary reductions and term caps for congress and senate as well.

[arraamis]

It wouldn't right away, and i've answered this question many times but i guess it was incoherent (wink wink) as well. "Going offtrack starting NOW"First we got to get off the crack, and go through the withdrawal ( a recession without interference from Govt.), then things will get better. This would be painful for regular people but this is essentially productive pain. "Still offtrack" As opposed to just pain for the sake of pain...by pretending that stimulus, QE's and other govt. intervenion will help when in reality those three are cocaine, heroin and meth all put into one. SUre it works temporarily like drugs, until the overdose. I'll leave it up to your monetary expert analysis as to what the overdose symptoms will be."Where the **** are you going with this?" But the cure is to get off of it. A tough thing to do for even a conservative Republican...but a Democrat? They like this kind of stuff so getting off of it is not an option for them.

Dude, WTF!!!!!
How does the above convoluted reply answer the very basic question I asked???

In your own words, how would adopting a full-fledged Free Market\Capitalist system bring the US from the brink??

Clearly based on evidence, when one ask's you a very basic question, you still find an oblique way to avoid verbalizing an answer with any coherency.

coherency:
Linguistics . the property of unity in a written text or a segment of spoken discourse that stems from the links among its underlying ideas and from the logical organization and development of its thematic content.

The above quoted post, does not answer the question I asked, in fact, you seem to be tangent prone and unable to focus your thought processes long enough to answer very basic questions.

***

Nothing you've presented thus far, demonstrates that you understand even at the intermediary level the concepts you espouse ... NOTHING!

Free Market Capitalism, can not and will not work if the goal is reversing the Financial\Monetary\Leadership mess, the US is currently experiencing.

Why?????

I'll start by providing very lucid definitions, that even you should be able to focus long enough in understanding.

Capitalism:
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.


Free Market
A system of economics that minimizes government intervention and maximizes the role of the market. According to the theory of the free market, rational economic actors acting in their own self interest deal with information and price goods and services the most efficiently. Government regulations, trade barriers, and labor laws are generally thought to distort the market. Proponents of the free market argue that it provides the most opportunities for both consumers and producers by creating more jobs and allowing competition to decide what businesses are successful. Critics maintain that an unfettered free market concentrates wealth in the hands of a few, which is unsustainable in the long term. In practice, no country or jurisdiction has a completely free market.

Now there is an underlying and very severe contradiction when combining the two aforementioned systems, that undermines their co-existence. Add to that problem the subject of a preexisting monetary system that is severely flawed in concept and you have in essence, a presentation of ideas that will not work to alter or correct the current path of the USofA.

The concepts are great as a classroom discussion piece, but again, severely flawed and it cannot be implemented alongside with any goal of success.

Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here, and state that you do not understand what the contradiction is when combining the two systems.

If not G00gle is your friend.

[One_Tycoon]

The concepts are great as a classroom discussion piece, but again, severely flawed and it cannot be implemented alongside with any goal of success.

But sure it can. Just from a individualistic standpoint...you can get more stuff done with basic regulations taken off the books. Individual by individual by individual...stuff will get done. Monetary system I explained already. If we could go back to people using whatever they want as a means of exchange, I'd be in favor of that too.

I've answered your question ..not my problem if you don't accept the answer. I provide common analogies for the simpleton to understand, instead of going off into some academic claptrap by pretending to be a nobel prize winning Economist.

Like these two geniuses for example.

[One_Tycoon]

And again....it's very important to put into context that you have a distorted Liberal point of view about Capitalism/Free Markets because you are a arrogant Liberal...thus false premises lead to false conclusions.

Look into Austrian Economics and it's proponents for better more articulate defense of Free Market Capitalism, and the term greed itself. These are all great things for the individuals and ultimately what's good for the individual is good for the collective economy as a whole just by pure circumstance, not because some Govt. appointed Central planner made it that way by targeting certain markets while ignoring others or vica versa.

[One_Tycoon]

Embrace Free Market Capitalism Arramis. Stop fighting it, resistance if futile.

Either embrace it or stop posting Ron Paul stuff...it's that simple. The old man doesn't agree with you.

[arraamis]

And again....it's very important to put into context that you have a distorted Liberal point of view about Capitalism/Free Markets because you are a arrogant Liberal...thus false premises lead to false conclusions.

Look into Austrian Economics and it's proponents for better more articulate defense of Free Market Capitalism, and the term greed itself. These are all great things for the individuals and ultimately what's good for the individual is good for the collective economy as a whole just by pure circumstance, not because some Govt. appointed Central planner made it that way by targeting certain markets while ignoring others or vica versa.

:wank:

Avoiding another question, I see .............

You cannot have a Free Market Capitalism system, alongside with FIAT monetary rules. The financial system undermines any long-term success, by devaluation of the item\items used for exchange. Ultimately and eventually, the economy will again, have more debt than money in circulation which is the beginning of the collapse-spiral ..... ECO101