HELP ME DEFEND RON PAUL

[Lois]

Hi All,

I'm trying to make the case for Ron Paul on a bulletin board where I post - the Other Topics forum. Unfortunately, I'm the only Ron Paul Libertarian - the rest are big libs/socialists, but I do the best I can. I'm not the most articulate person in the world and I don't have all the facts at the tip of my tongue right now, so is it possible for someone who is more well-versed in Ron Paul issues to help me out.

Here's what she said --

"Workers should have the right to health, safety, and collective bargaining at the workplace. OSHA oversees health and safety in the workplace, and the National Labor Relations Board oversees collective bargaining rights.

In this country, we have farm and industrial jobs where workers are continually exposed to hazardous conditions and harmful chemicals. Many of those workers would not have protective equipment without OSHA.

Ron Paul has introduced legislation to repeal OSHA and has called the National Labor Relations Board "unconstitutional".

Ron Paul is also opposed to the FDA, EPA, and consumer safety, because those things are all "bad for business". He is also opposed to social security, medicare, and national parks.

So what exactly is the "Plan B" for the elderly people who have worked all their lives but don't have savings? The streets?

Well, not exactly. "Plan B" is charity - a very attractive plan for 20-somethings. Not too attractive for 60+. Charity is the plan; the streets are the reality. No thank you, Ron Paul."

I don't quite know where to start with her. Any links to his articles or anything would be good - sorry, if you think I should do all the research myself - I can do that and usually do, but I'm just kind of overwhelmed right now.

(Please don't go on the forum there and try to help me because we're not supposed to be posting about Politics on there - we're doing it under the radar - and they'd know I called in the Ron Paul supporters and I'd get kicked off)

Thanks.

Lois

[emazur]

Paul doesn't believe is Social Security or Medicare but cutting them is not on the 2012 platform:

Honors our promise to our seniors and veterans,
while allowing young workers to opt out. Block grants
Medicaid and other welfare programs to allow States
the $exibility and ingenuity they need to solve their
own unique problems without harming those currently
relying on the programs.

He needs to cut them though. But the plan he's presenting to cut a trillion on federal spending and balance the budget in the 3rd year of his presidency is a good start. And that will be heavily resisted by the status-quo, so I can't really blame him for not wanting to slay 2 dragons at once.

You want something that will trump any argument of anyone who thinks the government should spend more and do nothing about entitlements? GAO data from 2007 (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07983r.pdf)shows that by 2040, nearly every dollar the government collects in taxes will be needed for Social Security, Medicare, and paying interest on the national debt. That info of course predates that massive increase in the national debt since then, and updated information from this year (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qBvBZTeI-8): Government report shows Social Security will run out of money in 2036, a year earlier than estimated, and Medicare will run out in 2024, 5 years earlier than estimated. And by the way, Social Security to run PERMANENT DEFICITS beginning THIS YEAR (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9vxfczmiwI)

If you're friend wants to play the game that "Ron Paul wants the elderly to be thrown into the street", ask her "why do you want every American to become a tax slave by 2040 and completely vulnerable to attack since there will be no money for national defense?"

[Seraphim]

Hi All,

I'm trying to make the case for Ron Paul on a bulletin board where I post - the Other Topics forum. Unfortunately, I'm the only Ron Paul Libertarian - the rest are big libs/socialists, but I do the best I can. I'm not the most articulate person in the world and I don't have all the facts at the tip of my tongue right now, so is it possible for someone who is more well-versed in Ron Paul issues to help me out.

Here's what she said --

"Workers should have the right to health, safety, and collective bargaining at the workplace. OSHA oversees health and safety in the workplace, and the National Labor Relations Board oversees collective bargaining rights.

A right to health implies doctor and nurses are slaves to you. Slavery is immoral. There is not a single rationalization that can reconcile this. Health care is a SERVICE, NOT a right.

You do not have a right to collectively bargain away taxpayer money that is stolen from them. If you want collective barganing, please go to the private sector and form a union there.

In this country, we have farm and industrial jobs where workers are continually exposed to hazardous conditions and harmful chemicals. Many of those workers would not have protective equipment without OSHA.

These workers can simply leave the job. No one is forcing them to stay. Such a movement forces employers to create better working conditions. It is in the best interest of employers to treat their employees well. If they do not, they go out of business. Adding regulations just for the sake of trying to make things better simply adds irrational costs to businesses which decreases their ability to hire and produce - net NEGATIVE for EVERYONE.
Ron Paul has introduced legislation to repeal OSHA and has called the National Labor Relations Board "unconstitutional".

Ron Paul is also opposed to the FDA, EPA, and consumer safety, because those things are all "bad for business". He is also opposed to social security, medicare, and national parks.

So what exactly is the "Plan B" for the elderly people who have worked all their lives but don't have savings? The streets?


He against these FEDERAL regulations, would like to allow the new generation to opt out of the immoral theft and illogical waste that social security creates WHILE CONTINUING TO PAY OUT TO THOSE WHO HAVE PAID IN. He wants a gradual weining off of the "drug". Well, not exactly. "Plan B" is charity - a very attractive plan for 20-somethings. Not too attractive for 60+. Charity is the plan; the streets are the reality. No thank you, Ron Paul."

I don't quite know where to start with her. Any links to his articles or anything would be good - sorry, if you think I should do all the research myself - I can do that and usually do, but I'm just kind of overwhelmed right now.

(Please don't go on the forum there and try to help me because we're not supposed to be posting about Politics on there - we're doing it under the radar - and they'd know I called in the Ron Paul supporters and I'd get kicked off)

Thanks.

Lois

[overcastpatriot]

I would emphasize that Ron Paul is actually the only candidate that will preserve Social Security, and this is accomplished through cuts and phasing out the program for young people (who don't want it anyway.) All other politicians are either avoiding the issue or hoping that we'll just figure something else out, someday, to preserve their own electability. To bury your head and the sand and pretend that SS can and always be preserved in its current form is irresponsible, selfish, and an insult to voters' intelligence. Ron Paul is facing reality and sometimes reality is less than ideal, but the alternative is either the collapse of SS or bankrupting/taxing the nation to support an increasignly anemic program.

With regard to regulation, I would emphasize that you understand why people are in favor it. These agencies all have proper, protective sounding names and in theory they are working non-stop to protect the average citizen from fraud and abuse. But once again, there is a disconnect between perception and reality. Most people stop at the perception. The reality is that the multitude of federal bureaucracy is merely an extension of the industry it is supposed to regulate. Money corrupts, and these organizations are stacked, especially at the top with industry insiders and capitalist cronies who work to promote the corporate interests' from within. Many of these leaders are either former industry or move on quickly to cushy consultant jobs in the industry. A good example would be the Minerals Management Service which came to light during the Gulf oil spill last year. The agency would basically have oil companies write and approve their own safety and production plans. Another example is the SEC and the Treasury which are full of Goldman insiders. You can see how in 2008 they bailed out their buddies while letting their enemies fail, and you paid for it. It would be nice if we could rely on all these agencies to be honest brokers for the people but that is just not the case. Ron Paul recognizes reality and knows it is better to cut corruption and preserve the financial solvency of the nation than continue to throw money at this mess and hope human nature will change. In the end the poster will need to accept that if people want safety/security/oversight they must demand it, and not rely on self-centered pseudo-government insiders to look out for their own interests.

[LibertasPraesidium]

Contracts between individuals and companies can cover bargaining, but forcing a company to pay higher wages than what they offer is a crime. Negotiating is fine, contracts are fine, but be careful where you place blame for lower than livable wages. Our dollars are being destroyed.

LIFE, LIBERTY, PURSUIT of Happiness.
The only rights we have in this country our outlined within the Constitution. Health, safety, and collective bargaining at the workplace are not in the list. The reason is that to start with making money almost always requires risk in the marketplace. When a company is invested in the investor is taking a risk with their money. It is illogical completely that a workplace would cause harm to its workers without regulations, if that happened people would stop working their, not willing to take a risk. (If a chemical bothers you and you work anywhere, when you mention it they hand you PPE) Collective bargaining is what unions do, to increase wages/benefits/reduce risks while working) That is the option of the people working their, however it is still up to the company to agree otherwise it wouldn't be bargaining, it would be telling the company what they have to do and that is not a right. Are union allowed to block all others from employment? (Join the union or no job?)

When someone puts themselves at risk it is there choice, and such is their choice to leave and get a different job. Government isn't needed to regulate businesses, workers and consumers can boycott because of working conditions and the company can then provide personal protective equipment or hire others that don't want to use it. There are more dangerous jobs that could have been listed and those jobs generally will force you to wear protective equipment before working. That is without OHSA.
Ron Paul has introduced legislation to repeal OSHA and has called the National Labor Relations Board "unconstitutional".

Ron Paul is also opposed to the FDA, EPA, and consumer safety, because those things are all "bad for business". He is also opposed to social security, medicare, and national parks.

Food and Drug administration, they take tax dollars and test products for 5-15 years at a time and then put a stamp on it saying it is approved. Why is there a necessity for this? If a product hits the market and causes harm the company should be held accountable. How do we have alcohol and tobacco in are markets if the FDA is suppose to protect us. Both are extremely harmful.

EPA makes regulations about the ability of companies to pollute their neighbors lands. Instead, let the property owners around the companies sue, this will reduce the amount we need the EPA to zero, property rights should be enforced not pushed aside by an agency.

Social Security isn't working, and saving money for yourself and being able to make more than the unlivable wage that is SS. When running his medical practice Ron Paul took all patients that were on medicare and did not charge them. Don't forget he is an OB/GYN, delivering babies isn't cheap, and when you have a program that gives out free money to get health care prices will go up in response.

Personal Responsibility is tantamount for a productive society, you are asking to redistribute wealth from others to pay for those who CHOOSE not to provide for their future, this is morally repugnant, taxation is wrong.

Well, not exactly. "Plan B" is charity - a very attractive plan for 20-somethings. Not too attractive for 60+. Charity is the plan; the streets are the reality. No thank you, Ron Paul."

[Lois]

Thanks so much, you guys! This is great! I feel like I'm cheating on my term paper, but I'm changing some words and putting them in quotes. The Ron Paul Supporters are the most articulate and well-informed of all.

Lois

[dannno]

Ron Paul is also opposed to the FDA, EPA, and consumer safety, because those things are all "bad for business"

Whoa, wait a minute here...

The FDA, EPA and consumer safety regulations are GREAT for big corporations!! Big corporations own and run all of those agencies and they benefit greatly from their existence. They have a revolving door of employees working for these agencies, they lobby to write the regulations. The regulations are written to be expensive for small businesses and affordable and designed around the business model of the large corporation putting the regulations into place. This mean government created monopolies exist within various industries due to regulations, which raises prices and lowers the quality of service for consumers.

So these agencies are actually make things worse for consumers.

[Zippyjuan]

I would emphasize that Ron Paul is actually the only candidate that will preserve Social Security, and this is accomplished through cuts and phasing out the program for young people (who don't want it anyway.) All other politicians are either avoiding the issue or hoping that we'll just figure something else out, someday, to preserve their own electability. To bury your head and the sand and pretend that SS can and always be preserved in its current form is irresponsible, selfish, and an insult to voters' intelligence. Ron Paul is facing reality and sometimes reality is less than ideal, but the alternative is either the collapse of SS or bankrupting/taxing the nation to support an increasignly anemic program.

The problem is that if you continue to pay out to all qualified people yet allow "young people" to opt out, you lose the money being paid in taxes and going to those benificiaries. That means a revenue shortfall which would have to be made up by other taxes or more cuts in other spending. Social Security and Medicare take up about a third of the entire budget. Add in interest on the debt and you cover nearly half of all government spending which doesn't leave much to cut. The remaining amount is almost exactly the same as the entire deficit for the year.

[Bossobass]

According to President Kennedy:
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.


The Kennedy tax cuts helped trigger the longest economic expansion in America's history. Between 1961 and 1968, the inflation-adjusted economy expanded by more than 42 percent. On a yearly basis, economic growth averaged more than 5 percent.


Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.


Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

Since then, government has grown at a pace that not only gobbled up the revenues increases, but is spending 10 times faster than that rate, necessitating the huge borrowing binge that has accumulated 15 trillion in national debt. This sucks virtually all of the available capital out of the market and into the black hole of federal government ineptitude, corruption, fraud and every other illegal means to redistribute that capital.

Medicare spends 20 cents of every dollar to pay for Medicare Fraud. An estimated $80-90 Billion per year.

The Pentagon has paid $1.1 TRILLION to contractors known to be fraudulent over the past 10 years.

Since the creation of the Department of Education, it has spent $1 TRILLION, during which time the US has fallen in basic educational skills from number 1 in the world to number 25 (estimates vary from #17 to #25 according to what is deemed necessary to include in "basic educational skills").


EPA Fraud: Chevy Volt, Nissan Leaf Actually Get Only 23, 25 MPG


Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf gets an actual mileage of 23-25 MPG if compared to the gasoline energy equivalent for generating the electricity to charge the batteries. The fraud is the way the EPA is comparing the usage because it is posting only the average gasoline usage and doesn't consider the electrical energy of coal burning generating stations. They rate them at 99MPG. As if the electricity is free. Must be government workers doing the calculations.


Post Office Losses Reach $4.7B for Year


Amtrak officials project an operating loss of $506 million in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, up from a loss of $419.9 million last year. Officials have projected a loss of $616 million next year.


All claims that Social Security is "secure for decades" are based on bogus fantasy-estimates, as are claims that the Trust Fund is anything but a carefully contrived fraud... ...assemble the data and draw the simple common-sense conclusions which reveal Social Security as a fraud with two components: the bogus estimates, and the bogus Trust Fund.


All published analyses are based either on SSA or CBO estimates, not the actual numbers from the Treasury, and all media reports I could find are simply cut-and-paste repetitions of these estimates.

I cannot find a single source which provided any evidence of digging through the data and assembling a coherent picture of the Social Security system.

The SS "TRUST" Fund has been looted of literally TRILLIONS of dollars and spent on "other". The Trust Fund now contains federal government IOUs, backed by its ability to additionally TAX those who regularly contributed to the fund over a lifetime and, of course, those who are just beginning that journey and who will never see a dime in return.

One can easily search and find the stupendous theft of taxpayers confiscated earnings as well as unearthing the incredible incompetence that is the US government. OSHA, FDA, EPA and every alphabet agency and department are steeped in fraud, losses, cost overruns and poor service that's far less than advertised... every time.

BTW, if OSHA, FDA, EPA, et al are so beneficial to the point we can't live without them, why are cancer, heart disease, stroke, lower respiratory diseases and accidents the top 5 leading causes of death in the US?

Anyone who wishes to defend the rats nest as a necessary benefit while on the runaway train to where Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Spain and, well, all of Europe is headed, have at it. It isn't worth the effort to type this post to argue with someone like that, IMO.

Pray RP wins. The alternative is grim.

Bosso