Trump's Cabinet: "It's been called the 'anti-government'" [Archive]

nikcers

12-13-2016, 10:02 PM

Washington Post? "fake news" The funny part is they have to do so much establishment dog whistling to counter act their fake news. Trump has to announce every shadow government puppet as a cabinet member and cancel national debates to give speeches to Isreel because he has so many fake news articles pushing out that he is anti Israel. Gotta announce John Bolton as SOS because he primaried on being anti establishment. Gotta announce Mitt Romney for a position, just so I can publicly say he can't have it because he primaried on draining the swamp and wants to hire people like Guliani.

This is all an escalation of the cold war, and people are being so naïve about it, Russia oh he criticized our government that was lying to us about hacking our computers. It's such a dishonest argument, because it takes nothing into consideration. If the government really wanted to protect us from other countries hacking into us, like pretend like they did, and there job was to defend us.

In order to detect and even protect American communications from foreign hackers, the government has to hack into our computers. How does the government catch the hackers unless there is a honey pot? Is Snowden a limited hangout, yes if you consider most people didn't take away the right lesson from it. It's like if people took history class and still repeated it, they aren't really learning anything.

The Gold Standard

12-13-2016, 10:36 PM

Here it comes. Painting this piece of shit Trump as some kind of libertarian. When the economy dies, "libertarian policies" will get the blame.

fcreature

12-13-2016, 10:56 PM

http://i63.tinypic.com/26035z6.png

http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/when-rick-perry-wanted-to-eliminate-the-department-of-energy-832396867866

fake news

oyarde

12-13-2016, 11:33 PM

He fought to replace Obamacare with something else? Wow, he is so anti-government. Extreme anarchist.

I fear for my roads.

Do not give them any ideas , they may want to tax fuel , license plates etc

juleswin

12-13-2016, 11:40 PM

oyarde

12-13-2016, 11:40 PM

Anti govt would be when you do not fill positions or fund agencies and abolish agencies . Exactly what is needed if you want to make america great.

LibertyEagle

12-13-2016, 11:50 PM

Here it comes. Painting this piece of $#@! Trump as some kind of libertarian. When the economy dies, "libertarian policies" will get the blame.

Nah, piece of $#@! Gary Johnson and Weld already took care of that.

The Gold Standard

12-13-2016, 11:57 PM

Nah, piece of $#@! Gary Johnson and Weld already took care of that.

Well, with all of the policies Johnson signed into law as president, maybe you're right. We should never have elected them.

nikcers

12-13-2016, 11:57 PM

Nah, piece of $#@! Gary Johnson and Weld already took care of that. Gary Johnson didn't make being anti war cool like Trump did though. Trump made being anti war a winning platform. Gary John doesn't get to ruin the economy and start wars with a libertarian message, he just gets to make it look lame.

LibertyEagle

12-14-2016, 12:04 AM

Well, with all of the policies Johnson signed into law as president, maybe you're right. We should never have elected them.

Perhaps you missed it, but Trump is not yet President and has signed absolutely 0 into law.

The Gold Standard

12-14-2016, 12:15 AM

Perhaps you missed it, but Trump is not yet President and has signed absolutely 0 into law.

But he will. And the media is already calling him an "Ayn Rand acolyte". When there isn't a single libertarian in his cabinet, nor a single libertarian position in his platform. And the next recession isn't far off. How convenient.

LibertyEagle

12-14-2016, 12:24 AM

But he will. And the media is already calling him an "Ayn Rand acolyte". When there isn't a single libertarian in his cabinet, nor a single libertarian position in his platform. And the next recession isn't far off. How convenient.

:rolleyes:

Trump never claimed to be libertarian, or anything close to it. Considering so many claiming to be libertarian here, seem to love open borders and unlimited illegal aliens, I doubt I would have voted for him if he had.

nikcers

12-14-2016, 12:30 AM

:rolleyes:

Trump never claimed to be libertarian, or anything close to it. Considering so many claiming to be libertarian here, seem to love open borders and unlimited illegal aliens, I doubt I would have voted for him if he had. Which is a wonderful argument if he wasn't pro war that stole all of the anti war votes through deception. Who will be the ones disappointed the most in this election, libertarians when Trump lives up to their expectations, or anti war Trump supporters who thought they were doing their patriotic duty? IF you say libertarians then I suppose you might be right, Trump will probably program those same patriots into being pro war because being anti war is unpatriotic.

LibertyEagle

12-14-2016, 12:34 AM

Which is a wonderful argument if he wasn't pro war that stole all of the anti war votes through deception. Who will be the ones disappointed the most in this election, libertarians when Trump lives up to their expectations, or anti war Trump supporters who thought they were doing their patriotic duty? IF you say libertarians then I suppose you might be right, Trump will probably program those same patriots into being pro war because being anti war is unpatriotic.

Who was the anti-war candidate you believe Trump stole voters from? I must have missed it.

Murray N Rothbard

12-14-2016, 03:16 AM

Anti-Government...what a joke. They all very pro-Govt, just only when it is serving their own interests.

RE Libertarians and Trump. It is pretty unfortunate that there was a legitimate growing Libertarian movement going on in this country before Trump. He kind of swept up all the people who were weak or new Libertarians or were open to learning about it. Seems like it might have been better for things in the long-run if 2016 had been 2 Estblishment candidates like Bush and Hillary. Would have set up 2020 a lot better than it will now.

Anti-Neocon

12-14-2016, 03:24 AM

Global warming "skepticism" is just an anti-science position. The discussion should be had on how to respond to the real threat of global warming, preferably without destroying economies through market interference.

Taxpayer money to private schools rather than government schools is just taking your money and giving it to someone else.

The typical Republican type of "privatization" in general is a farce, because it just takes money from one private entity and hands it over to another.

dannno

12-14-2016, 03:27 AM

Global warming "skepticism" is just an anti-science position.

Uh, no, it's an anti-GOVERNMENT science position.

Taxpayer money to private schools rather than government schools is just taking your money and giving it to someone else.

It creates greater choice for what people can do with their money and how they can educate their kids which is a step in the right direction that will have positive benefits.

dannno

12-14-2016, 03:34 AM

Anti-Government...what a joke. They all very pro-Govt, just only when it is serving their own interests.

Ya that is actually an interesting strategy I have to admit. He chooses statists and picks them for one of the few issues they are anti-statist on.

Let's assume Trump's goal is to create a powerful force of change, and so he decides he wants to put the most powerful people he can in his cabinet. The problem is he also wants to get things done that aren't very popular with the establishment. So how does he pick people in the establishment who want to do things that are anti-establishment? Well, he has to do some cherry-picking.

P3ter_Griffin

12-14-2016, 05:06 AM

It creates greater choice for what people can do with their money and how they can educate their kids which is a step in the right direction that will have positive benefits.

I honestly think there is zero good to be had by any sort of federalization of school choice. And a lot of potential negatives that could harm the school choice efforts made in the different states.

Schifference

12-14-2016, 05:23 AM

The Gold Standard

12-14-2016, 08:19 AM

:rolleyes:

Trump never claimed to be libertarian, or anything close to it. Considering so many claiming to be libertarian here, seem to love open borders and unlimited illegal aliens, I doubt I would have voted for him if he had.

I didn't say Trump claimed anything. It doesn't matter what he claimed. He will be labeled a libertarian by the media and the philosophy will be blamed for the coming economic disaster. That was always my opinion if he won the election, and now it is coming to pass.

osan

12-14-2016, 08:22 AM

He fought to replace Obamacare with something else? Wow, he is so anti-government. Extreme anarchist.

I fear for my roads.

Learn to spell "muh roads", dammit. "Muh rowdz" is also acceptable.

osan

12-14-2016, 08:30 AM

Insane people.

Doesn't tell us much, given about 1 in 2 people are certifiably 'round the bend, half of the rest being eminently questionable, and half of the rest remaining by no means certain of rationality.

"Ayn Rand-acolyte Donald Trump stacks his cabinet with fellow objectivists"

This may or may not signal unhingedness. It could be nothing fancier than prudent tactics pursuant to the strategy of endlessly working to discredit ideas that would pose a serious threat to one's interests, were they to take hold.

"How Ayn Rand’s Conspiracy Theories Destroyed ‘Never Trump’ Conservatism"

Fixed it for them. Could you pass it on? I'm sure they will agree with the correction.

osan

12-14-2016, 08:34 AM

Do not give them any ideas , they may want to tax fuel , license plates etc

Income. I bet they'll tax income next.

Oh wait...

osan

12-14-2016, 08:56 AM

Remember, someone can preach all the anti govt stuff when they are out of govt. The true test would be to see what they do once they actually have gov power. Ronald Reagan is the best example of a politician talking big on cutting govt but then turning around to expand it. And yes, they all have their excuses on why they could not reduce govt but that is all it is, excuses.

I will believe it when I see it.

Sponge... erm, I mean rep-worthy.

Reagan was all talk and no walk. I wasn't all that fired up about politics when I was 22, and yet I watched in disgust as Ronbo yakked on endlessly about smaller government as that very entity blew up like Rosie O'Donnell on a warm-up binge of twenty Sam's Club-sized Whitman's Samplers in prep for the real binging to blot out the incomprehensible misery that her very existence on earth represents to her.

Anti govt would be when you do not fill positions or fund agencies and abolish agencies . Exactly what is needed if you want to make america great.

Ideally, yes. But imagine what would happen if Trump announced that on 1/21/17 he would wipe 30 agencies from existence. He'd never take the oath.

I'm not saying Trump has any intention of eliminating EPA, DOE, and so on; nor am I saying he doesn't, though I recognize it is not very likely. But what if he is genuinely seeking to pare those agencies down such that they are no longer able to perpetrate their criminal damages upon Americans to the degree we currently suffer? Think strategically on the practical plane. Any attempt to sweep EPA away could conceivably result in mass insurrection or even civil war as progressive/liberals take a mind-altering shit and go wild in the streets. Just look at what they did when Trump won. Such gross movements as these would only spur them to more violence.

The practical approach to de-balling or eliminating these boat-anchor agencies is to manage them downward in time. Shrink them gradually, giving "the system" time to absorb the changes. In order to better ensure the protections EPA ostensibly provides, is to offload their functions onto the courts. I MIGHT see EPA remaining in the role of pure environmental research with zero enforcement roles, if we absolutely had to retain them for whatever idiotic reason. However, private companies could perhaps take up that banner, but let us not expect too much from reformers or the ninnies that constitute the majority of the American population.

But from a comparative perspective, what I suggest could work out rather nicely. EPA does pure environmental research and serves as expert input at trials involving relevant issues such as a company dumping pollutants into the river, just to name one example. An agency whose sole raison-d'être is to understand environmental issues could be of use in a world unprepared for more anarchic arrangements. Again, I direct thought toward the notion of comparative improvement, rather than expectations of perfect solutions.

At this point, things are so bad that I must recommend we work toward incremental improvements and be glad of the small victories, never ceasing our march toward diminished servitude to, and interference from "government". There ain't a gwyne be no liberty revolution in our lifetimes, most likely. Perhaps Trump recognizes this, perhaps not. But if he does and he cares about such things, which remains to be shown, he surely knows that gross sea changes will not lead to stable results. Give the agencies in question new directives and when the predictably fail to toe the line, get out the scalpels and start cutting. That would be my strategy, anyhow.

FWIW.

Madison320

12-14-2016, 09:37 AM

Here is a another

"How Ayn Rand’s Theories Destroyed ‘Never Trump’ Conservatism"

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/12/how-ayn-rands-theories-destroyed-never-trump-conservatism.html

I just read that article. Totally wrong about Rand's philosophy, it's not about siding with the rich, it's about individual liberty. Totally wrong about Trump being inline with Rand.

jllundqu

12-14-2016, 11:27 AM

Since Trump Erection Goldman Sachs stock has gone up 87%... #MMBGA (Make Megabanks Great Again)

dannno

12-14-2016, 11:37 AM

I honestly think there is zero good to be had by any sort of federalization of school choice. And a lot of potential negatives that could harm the school choice efforts made in the different states.

lol... what a joke.

Look, if we had a good educational system that included choice already, I would agree with you that federalizing school choice is a bad idea. But the state our school systems are in now, a transition to allowing people to choose what schools they go to and allow them to use their tax money to send their kids to private schools is clearly a step in the right direction - from where we are NOW. Where we are now is a federally controlled, anti-choice school system.

nikcers

12-14-2016, 12:23 PM

lol... what a joke.

Look, if we had a good educational system that included choice already, I would agree with you that federalizing school choice is a bad idea. But the state our school systems are in now, a transition to allowing people to choose what schools they go to and allow them to use their tax money to send their kids to private schools is clearly a step in the right direction - from where we are NOW. Where we are now is a federally controlled, anti-choice school system.

Where I live I am pretty sure parents get to choose schools, it wasn't something that was there when I was a kid you had to lie about your address. I was pretty sure this was a state thing though.

dannno

12-14-2016, 12:48 PM

Where I live I am pretty sure parents get to choose schools, it wasn't something that was there when I was a kid you had to lie about your address. I was pretty sure this was a state thing though.

School choice doesn't just imply that you get to choose which public school you go to, it generally implies allowing you to take back a portion of your tax money in order to spend it on any school, public or private or alternative/charter..

Any level of government who wants to RETURN a portion of taxpayer money to let them choose how to spend it instead is a good thing compared to what we have, federal, state, whatever.. And Hillary wasn't going to do that no matter what.

Superfluous Man

12-14-2016, 12:50 PM

Trump apologists are hilarious.

They're trolling now. They must be.

dannno

12-14-2016, 01:00 PM

Trump apologists are hilarious.

They're trolling now. They must be.

So you think all this school choice stuff is nonsense and we would be better off with Hillary running the department of education?

nikcers

12-14-2016, 01:02 PM

School choice doesn't just imply that you get to choose which public school you go to, it generally implies allowing you to take back a portion of your tax money in order to spend it on any school, public or private or alternative/charter..

Any level of government who wants to RETURN a portion of taxpayer money to let them choose how to spend it instead is a good thing compared to what we have, federal, state, whatever.. And Hillary wasn't going to do that no matter what.

The Education Savings Account Program (ESA) provides a means for Nevada Parents with children enrolled in a public/charter school to choose a different option to meet their educational needs. A parent who wishes to choose an alternative to a public school simply can apply for an Education Savings Account and a percentage of what the state funds for their child’s public education will be deposited into an account for that child. The funds can then be used for education related expenses at approved participating entities. Nevada’s ESA program is being administered by the State Treasurer’s Office (STO), who is responsible for establishing the regulations, timelines, and program successes.

I don't understand, you mean this is something the state can't do or was Clinton going to stop states from doing this?

dannno

12-14-2016, 01:04 PM

I don't understand, you mean this is something the state can't do or was Clinton going to stop states from doing this?

I guess I have to repeat myself.

Any level of government who wants to RETURN a portion of taxpayer money to let them choose how to spend it instead is a good thing compared to what we have

jllundqu

12-14-2016, 01:28 PM

I guess I have to repeat myself.

This was Ron Paul's approach as well. His mentality on pork barrel spending was similar. He brought home lots of bacon to his district and rationalized it by saying that every dollar that he can bring back from the federal level to the local level is a victory. He still voted against federal taxation and spending, but as long as feds were taking the money, he tried to take some back

P3ter_Griffin

12-14-2016, 01:28 PM

lol... what a joke.

Look, if we had a good educational system that included choice already, I would agree with you that federalizing school choice is a bad idea. But the state our school systems are in now, a transition to allowing people to choose what schools they go to and allow them to use their tax money to send their kids to private schools is clearly a step in the right direction - from where we are NOW. Where we are now is a federally controlled, anti-choice school system.

The only way I see that the feds would dictate to the states that they must provide private schools with public money is if it is accompanied by a common-core-like set of standards for private schools. I could be wrong obviously. And the feds are not anti-choice as can be seen by the fact that several states already have a school choice program.

Madison320

12-14-2016, 03:04 PM

Here it comes. Painting this piece of $#@! Trump as some kind of libertarian. When the economy dies, "libertarian policies" will get the blame.

I agree although I don't think the media is planning it out ahead of time. I don't think they're smart enough to know that a crash is coming. But when the crash hits you can guarantee 100% the media will blame it on Trump and free market capitalism.

Superfluous Man

12-14-2016, 03:05 PM

This was Ron Paul's approach as well. His mentality on pork barrel spending was similar. He brought home lots of bacon to his district and rationalized it by saying that every dollar that he can bring back from the federal level to the local level is a victory. He still voted against federal taxation and spending, but as long as feds were taking the money, he tried to take some back

Ron Paul has always opposed federal involvement in education, including federal school choice mandates.

dannno

12-14-2016, 03:21 PM

Ron Paul has always opposed federal involvement in education, including federal school choice mandates.

Wow, you are so full of shit.

https://ftmdaily.com/global-issues/big-brother-government-global-issues/ron-paul-every-week-should-be-school-choice-week/

Ron Paul: Every Week Should Be School Choice Week
The key to restoring parental control is to give parents back control over the education dollar. This means shutting down the Department of Education and returning the money currently spent promoting schemes like “common core”. Ideally, this would be accomplished by eliminating all federal taxes on American families. However, if the political support for outright abolition of federal taxes is not available, education tax credits can also serve as an effective way of getting control over education back into the hands of the people. Unlike taxpayer-funded vouchers, private tax credits do not open the door to government control of education. This is because tax credits allow parents to use their own money on their children’s education, rather than relying on funds provided by the federal government. Since “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” federal funding of education—whether in the form of federal grants or taxpayer-funded vouchers—inevitably means schools will spend more time trying to please federal bureaucrats than parents.

Superfluous Man

12-14-2016, 03:27 PM

Wow, you are so full of $#@!.

https://ftmdaily.com/global-issues/big-brother-government-global-issues/ron-paul-every-week-should-be-school-choice-week/

People who can read with comprehension can understand how that doesn't contradict what I said.

Zippyjuan

12-14-2016, 03:27 PM

Insane people.

This is an actual title from the Washington Post. Literally. This is how unhinged they are.

"Ayn Rand-acolyte Donald Trump stacks his cabinet with fellow objectivists"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/12/13/daily-202-ayn-rand-acolyte-donald-trump-stacks-his-cabinet-with-fellow-objectivists/584f5cdfe9b69b36fcfeaf3b/?utm_term=.d85fe8bf1142&wpisrc=nl_daily202&wpmm=1

Here is a another

"How Ayn Rand’s Theories Destroyed ‘Never Trump’ Conservatism"

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/12/how-ayn-rands-theories-destroyed-never-trump-conservatism.html

Trump on Ayn Rand:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/11/donald-trump-interview-elections-2016-ayn-rand-vp-pick-politics-column/82899566/

Trump described himself as an Ayn Rand fan. He said of her novel The Fountainhead, “It relates to business (and) beauty (and) life and inner emotions. That book relates to ... everything.” He identified with Howard Roark, the novel's idealistic protagonist who designs skyscrapers and rages against the establishment.

When I pointed out that The Fountainhead is in a way about the tyranny of groupthink, Trump sat up and said, “That’s what is happening here.” He then recounted a call he received from a liberal journalist: “How does it feel to have done what you have done? I said what have I done. He said nobody ever in the history of this country has done what you have done. And I said, well, if I lose, then no big deal. And he said no, no, if you lose, it doesn’t matter because this will be talked about forever.

"And I said it will be talked about more if I win.”

dannno

12-14-2016, 03:39 PM

People who can read with comprehension can understand how that doesn't contradict what I said.

No, YOU'RE the one with poor reading comprehension. Nobody here said anything about federal school choice mandates, you completely pulled that out of your ass. What we are saying is that the federal government can potentially create initiatives that are pro-school choice, initiatives that Ron Paul SUGGESTED in the article I posted. I posted the article because you seemed to be under the delusion that the only thing the federal government could do for school choice was something that Ron Paul was opposed to and that just isn't accurate.

Get your manipulative CNN style crap off the forum.

H. E. Panqui

12-14-2016, 03:48 PM

dannno

12-14-2016, 04:06 PM

danno writes: "It creates greater choice for what people can do with their money and how they can educate their kids which is a step in the right direction that will have positive benefits."

:cool:

...'it' is just another scheme to steal from people who don't want children or who want fewer children, and give it to people with children, more children...trump sucks bigly...like ALL the rest of the stinking republicrats...

Oh ya, because Hillary was really going to be giving single people a tax break so they don't have to pay for the education for children that don't belong to them???

Come on, this is EASY shit man.. The government gives people back some of their money, so they can choose how to spend it. Is it straight voluntarism? No. But is is better than what we have today?? Absolutely. Even Ron Paul supports it. Is it way better than what Hillary was going to do? Absolutely. Is it going to have positive benefits compared to our current system? Yes. The education system in this country will likely be much better in four years because of Trump than it would have been without him.

Superfluous Man

12-14-2016, 04:09 PM

No, YOU'RE the one with poor reading comprehension. Nobody here said anything about federal school choice mandates

But you said that Ron Paul supported them and then quoted him saying something totally different.

dannno

12-14-2016, 04:14 PM

But you said that Ron Paul supported them and then quoted him saying something totally different.

More manipulative bullshit. I can't wait until you get banned.

I did not say Ron Paul supported federal school choice mandates, I said he supported federal school choice INITIATIVES like the one he described in his article.

You are the one who narrowed down ALL federal school choice initiatives into a single federal choice initiative known as a federal school choice mandate, which is inaccurate. My post was meant to show you that there is more than one federal school choice initiative that the federal government can engage in, because your post insinuated that there was only one and Ron Paul was against it.

Sorry, but I'm not going to let you get away with your manipulative bullshit, so don't try it.

Superfluous Man

12-14-2016, 04:18 PM

Oh ya, because Hillary was really going to be giving single people a tax break so they don't have to pay for the education for children that don't belong to them???

Come on, this is EASY $#@! man.. The government gives people back some of their money, so they can choose how to spend it. Is it straight voluntarism? No. But is is better than what we have today?? Absolutely. Even Ron Paul supports it. Is it way better than what Hillary was going to do? Absolutely. Is it going to have positive benefits compared to our current system? Yes. The education system in this country will likely be much better in four years because of Trump than it would have been without him.

You are confusing Trump's plan with Ron Paul's plan, which bears no resemblance to his.

Superfluous Man

12-14-2016, 04:20 PM

Superfluous Man

12-14-2016, 04:20 PM

I did not say Ron Paul supported federal school choice mandates,

You're so dumb you can't even understand your own words. I said that Ron Paul didn't support federal school choice mandates, and you said I was full of s--- for saying that.

I can't wait until you get banned. This site has a mission. All you ever do here is mock us all for supporting it.

H. E. Panqui

12-14-2016, 04:47 PM

Ender

12-14-2016, 04:53 PM

OK Guys,

HERE'S the real and only answer:

GET GOVERNMENT COMPLETELY OUT OF EDUCATION!

Got it? ;)

dannno

12-14-2016, 05:01 PM

You're so dumb you can't even understand your own words. I said that Ron Paul didn't support federal school choice mandates, and you said I was full of s--- for saying that.

ONCE AGAIN I said you were full of shit because you were claiming that school choice mandates were the only way the federal government could put forward a school choice initiative, when Ron Paul has put forward federal school choice initiatives that he would support. You were being manipulative, and that shit gets on my nerves. Stop it.

My response to the post you are talking about was literally to say that we should do the exact same thing that Ron Paul suggested. Then you came in with your manipulative bullshit talking about school choice mandates again. I've never brought that up, that is a straw-man argument that you and the other poster were using to be manipulative. Stop it.

dannno

12-14-2016, 05:03 PM

OK Guys,

HERE'S the real and only answer:

GET GOVERNMENT COMPLETELY OUT OF EDUCATION!

Got it? ;)

That isn't going to happen right now and you know it.

What we can do, is give money that people give to the government back to the people, to spend on education how they wish. Ron Paul supports this and this a forum dedicated to Ron Paul. Simple stuff.

Rand Paul is coming out for Trump when Trump is right. This is an area where Trump is appearing to do the right thing and improving a bad situation we have in a realistic way. But we have people on this forum who are dedicated to trashing Trump's every move, even when they are good ones. That is manipulative, stupid and I hate that shit.

dannno

12-14-2016, 05:08 PM

danno limbaughs: Oh ya, because Hillary was really going to be giving single people a tax break so they don't have to pay for the education for children that don't belong to them???

:o...you ought to be ashamed of this^^...your stinking trump's 'education' policies/notions are so close to hillary clinton's stinking policies/notions that only a republican radio consumer would quibble...

...'you got nothing'...as i said it's just another $cheme, except now your stinking republicans will be $igning the check$...

Giving taxpayers money back to spend it how they want is a "scheme"?? Compared to letting the government spend it? Are you insane?

Ron Paul supports it, this is a forum dedicated to Ron Paul. Think about that before responding.

I am a voluntarist, I don't even believe in government. But if we are going to have a government, the closer to a free market we can get the better. Your accusations are totally ludicrous.

Superfluous Man

12-14-2016, 05:23 PM

What we can do, is give money that people give to the government back to the people, to spend on education how they wish. Ron Paul supports this and this a forum dedicated to Ron Paul. Simple stuff.

You yourself earlier in this thread quoted Ron Paul saying he was for tax credits, not vouchers. It's not taking money from some people and giving it to other people, like Trump supports. It's letting people keep their own money, rather than give it to the government.

Ron Paul has always opposed what Trump is pushing.

H. E. Panqui

12-14-2016, 05:26 PM

Superfluous Man

12-14-2016, 05:27 PM

danno twists and cha cha's: Giving taxpayers money back to spend it how they want is a "scheme"??

:rolleyes:

...i fixed it for you, trumpster: 'Giving taxpayers [with children more] money [than they paid in taxes] back to spend it how they want...and yes danno OF COURSE it is a $cheme!

...turn off the republican radio...

Your fix isn't good enough. The Trump plan is taking money from tax payers and giving it to non-tax payers.

It has come up before. Ron Paul has consistently opposed it.

dannno

12-14-2016, 05:30 PM

You yourself earlier in this thread quoted Ron Paul saying he was for tax credits, not vouchers. It's not taking money from some people and giving it to other people, like Trump supports. It's letting people keep their own money, rather than give it to the government.

Ron Paul has always opposed what Trump is pushing.

Ron Paul doesn't like vouchers as much as he likes tax credits because vouchers tend to give the bureaucracies more control over how they are spent.

That doesn't mean Ron Paul thinks vouchers are worse than what we have today, he just has a preferable method of giving people more and better choices and of course he is right.

In fact, Ron Paul has voted for voucher systems (federally), and against voucher systems, in the past.

Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools.

Vote to pass a bill to allow states to use certain federal funds designated for elementary and secondary education to provide scholarships, or vouchers, to low-income families to send their children to private schools, including religious schools. Reference: Bill sponsored by Riggs, R-CA; Bill HR 2746 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.2746:) ; vote number 1997-569 (http://www.ontheissues.org/HouseVote/Party_1997-569.htm) on Nov 4, 1997

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Education.htm

Ender

12-14-2016, 05:32 PM

That isn't going to happen right now and you know it.

What we can do, is give money that people give to the government back to the people, to spend on education how they wish. Ron Paul supports this and this a forum dedicated to Ron Paul. Simple stuff.

Rand Paul is coming out for Trump when Trump is right. This is an area where Trump is appearing to do the right thing and improving a bad situation we have in a realistic way. But we have people on this forum who are dedicated to trashing Trump's every move, even when they are good ones. That is manipulative, stupid and I hate that $#@!.

if people stopped sending their children to public school, it COULD happen right now.

Morpheus: The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

dannno

12-14-2016, 05:33 PM

danno twists and cha cha's: Giving taxpayers money back to spend it how they want is a "scheme"??

:rolleyes:

...i fixed it for you, trumpster: 'Giving taxpayers [with children more] money [than they paid in taxes] back to spend it how they want...and yes danno OF COURSE it is a $cheme!

...turn off the republican radio...

Wait, I just want to make sure and get this right, because I'm pretty sure 100% of the liberty supporters on this forum would disagree with you..

You think it is better to let the government spend people's money, than letting people spend their own money?

Sorry, I just want to make sure this is what you actually believe...

dannno

12-14-2016, 05:35 PM

if people stopped sending their children to public school, it COULD happen right now.

lol... ookkkk....

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't send my kids to public school. But I know other people.

Ender

12-14-2016, 05:38 PM

lol... ookkkk....

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't send my kids to public school. But I know other people.

That's because they're living in The Matrix.

This is the time for real education- most people have no concept of the world they live in and what is ruling them.

Superfluous Man

12-14-2016, 05:41 PM

Ron Paul doesn't like vouchers as much as he likes tax credits because vouchers tend to give the bureaucracies more control over how they are spent.

That doesn't mean Ron Paul thinks vouchers are worse than what we have today, he just has a preferable method of giving people more and better choices and of course he is right.

In fact, Ron Paul has voted for voucher systems (federally), and against voucher systems, in the past.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Education.htm

Notice the word used in that bill description. He voted to allow, not mandate, the use of vouchers.

dannno

12-14-2016, 06:25 PM

That's because they're living in The Matrix.

This is the time for real education- most people have no concept of the world they live in and what is ruling them.

As much as I think Trump will be head over heals better than Hillary would have been, I don't think Trump is the guy to educate everybody about liberty. That's Ron or Rand's job. I see Trump as someone who can potentially put some bandaids on things like our foreign policy, education and healthcare system to stop some of the bleeding.

Origanalist

12-14-2016, 06:41 PM

Wait, I just want to make sure and get this right, because I'm pretty sure 100% of the liberty supporters on this forum would disagree with you..

You think it is better to let the government spend people's money, than letting people spend their own money?

Sorry, I just want to make sure this is what you actually believe...

That's not what he said at all, Good Lord dannno, your brains been infected. He said giving taxpayers more than they paid in isn't right. It's government taking someones money and giving it to someone else they deem more worthy.

dannno

12-14-2016, 06:42 PM

Notice the word used in that bill description. He voted to allow, not mandate, the use of vouchers.

Well I see you Stand with Rand

Rand Paul pushes federal school vouchers

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2013/03/25/rand-paul-pushes-federal-school-vouchers/?utm_term=.952f588bee59

It's not as good as Ron's solution, but at the end of the day it is giving people money back to spend how they wish instead of the government spending it - now you could say that they might not be paying taxes so they aren't getting money back that they put in - but that isn't really the reality of the situation. As it stands now the money is going to be spent on education no matter what - this simply directs the money to the parent so they can choose how it is spent. If you believe people can make better decisions for their children than government, then this is a step in the right direction.

dannno

12-14-2016, 06:46 PM

That's not what he said at all, Good Lord dannno, your brains been infected. He said giving taxpayers more than they paid in isn't right. It's government taking someones money and giving it to someone else they deem more worthy.

That's not what is happening with this action, though. That is what is already happening with the system as a whole. This is a reform to the system so that people can choose where the money is spent rather than the government making the decision. It's not the best solution, but it is in the right direction.

Ender

12-14-2016, 06:47 PM

As much as I think Trump will be head over heals better than Hillary would have been, I don't think Trump is the guy to educate everybody about liberty. That's Ron or Rand's job. I see Trump as someone who can potentially put some bandaids on things like our foreign policy, education and healthcare system to stop some of the bleeding.

The education is not going to come from government; it's going to come from us.

dannno

12-14-2016, 06:50 PM

The education is not going to come from government; it's going to come from us.

Ron Paul was in government when he educated me about liberty as much as anybody else ever has. That's some irony ain't it.

Origanalist

12-14-2016, 06:56 PM

That's not what is happening with this action, though. That is what is already happening with the system as a whole. This is a reform to the system so that people can choose where the money is spent rather than the government making the decision. It's not the best solution, but it is in the right direction.

How so? I'm willing to be educated. The government is taking tax dollars and telling you how you can use them. After they take their cut.

Origanalist

12-14-2016, 06:57 PM

Ron Paul was in government when he educated me about liberty as much as anybody else ever has. That's some irony ain't it.

Hell ya it is. And plenty of people in government didn't like it one bit.

dannno

12-14-2016, 07:39 PM

How so? I'm willing to be educated. The government is taking tax dollars and telling you how you can use them. After they take their cut.

You're adding shit to the action that doesn't exist. The money is already being taken, it's already going to be spent on education. This particular action gives the ability for people to choose where that money is spent. That's actually a pretty big deal. It's not something I would advocate for in a free society, but in our current society it is going in the right direction.

nikcers

12-14-2016, 07:47 PM

You're adding $#@! to the action that doesn't exist. The money is already being taken, it's already going to be spent on education. This particular action gives the ability for people to choose where that money is spent. That's actually a pretty big deal. It's not something I would advocate for in a free society, but in our current society it is going in the right direction. No matter how I try your math you're adding shit to the debt that doesn't exist. You keep acting like the fed government is going to come in and fix schools, when I already told you this is a state issue. I don't care how your math works out, the feds don't budget anything, the feds need to get out of the business of schools. Tell me how this is funded, tell me how Trump is going to fund his government when he wont' even release a fucking budget. X +Y -1700000000000000 =Z?

Origanalist

12-14-2016, 08:17 PM

You're adding shit to the action that doesn't exist. The money is already being taken, it's already going to be spent on education. This particular action gives the ability for people to choose where that money is spent. That's actually a pretty big deal. It's not something I would advocate for in a free society, but in our current society it is going in the right direction.

What? You're off the rails. "The money is already being taken" Well, stop taking it damn it. The fedgov has no business there.

dannno

12-14-2016, 08:24 PM

What? You're off the rails. "The money is already being taken" Well, stop taking it damn it. The fedgov has no business there.

Of course it doesn't.. but the action being taken is increasing people's freedom. If you were expecting Trump to create a voluntarist society, that isn't going to happen. What we are looking for is to increase freedom and personal choice, rather than decrease it, and Trump is going in the right direction whereas Hillary would have taken us in the wrong direction. It's not any more complicated than that.

dannno

12-14-2016, 08:25 PM

No matter how I try your math you're adding shit to the debt that doesn't exist. You keep acting like the fed government is going to come in and fix schools, when I already told you this is a state issue. I don't care how your math works out, the feds don't budget anything, the feds need to get out of the business of schools. Tell me how this is funded, tell me how Trump is going to fund his government when he wont' even release a fucking budget. X +Y -1700000000000000 =Z?

The government fixes schools by getting out of the way. One way they can get out of the way is to let people spend the money that they would have spent for them on education.

Origanalist

12-14-2016, 09:50 PM

Of course it doesn't.. but the action being taken is increasing people's freedom. If you were expecting Trump to create a voluntarist society, that isn't going to happen. What we are looking for is to increase freedom and personal choice, rather than decrease it, and Trump is going in the right direction whereas Hillary would have taken us in the wrong direction. It's not any more complicated than that.

I hope you're right and I'm wrong. We'll just have to wait and see.

dannno

12-14-2016, 10:15 PM

I hope you're right and I'm wrong. We'll just have to wait and see.

Hah I'd be surprised if they end up letting Trump in the Whitehouse to begin with.. and I am still very curious to see how all this plays out if he does. I just like to identify the good signs and the bad signs accurately, as in, what direction will he take us from where we are. If Trump massively lowers taxes and brings jobs back, great. If he gets us out of foreign entanglements, great. Will he cut government spending? I really hope so, but I haven't seen a lot of good signs for that. We all know that's really the important part. But I do think a better business environment will help pay for the massive government spending we currently have, and will lead to some limited prosperity and increased standard of living at least - and hopefully help people get off the welfare cycle.

I was just really dreading where we might be headed if Hillary had won. Trump at least buys us some time, I think, and may legitimately make some things a lot better.

Origanalist

12-14-2016, 10:24 PM

Hah I'd be surprised if they end up letting Trump in the Whitehouse to begin with.. and I am still very curious to see how all this plays out if he does. I just like to identify the good signs and the bad signs accurately, as in, what direction will he take us from where we are. If Trump massively lowers taxes and brings jobs back, great. If he gets us out of foreign entanglements, great. Will he cut government spending? I really hope so, but I haven't seen a lot of good signs for that. We all know that's really the important part. But I do think a better business environment will help pay for the massive government spending we currently have, and will lead to some limited prosperity and increased standard of living at least - and hopefully help people get off the welfare cycle.

I was just really dreading where we might be headed if Hillary had won. Trump at least buys us some time, I think, and may legitimately make some things a lot better.

We all know where Hillary would have took us. Right now it's a waiting game.

H. E. Panqui

12-15-2016, 06:47 AM

danno channels republican radio: You think it is better to let the government spend people's money, than letting people spend their own money?

:rolleyes:

...no...wrong again...strawman again...

...you are a trump apologist advocating for a system where people with children get to spend other people's money on 'education' :rolleyes: approved by betsy devos and other gd fool republicans...get real...

...willfully ignorant much?..;)

nikcers

12-15-2016, 04:55 PM

lol... what a joke. Rand Paul is coming out for Trump when Trump is right.-

Look, if we had a good educational system that included choice already, I would agree with you that federalizing school choice is a bad idea. But the state our school systems are in now, a transition to allowing people to choose what schools they go to and allow them to use their tax money to send their kids to private schools is clearly a step in the right direction - from where we are NOW. Where we are now is a federally controlled, anti-choice school system.
No.

When some in government say “of course we can,” you and I are supposed to use the Bill of Rights to say, “No, you can’t.” -Rand Paul

dannno

12-15-2016, 04:57 PM

...no...wrong again...strawman again...

...you are a trump apologist advocating for a system where people with children get to spend other people's money on 'education' :rolleyes: approved by betsy devos and other gd fool republicans...get real...

...willfully ignorant much?..;)

Bullshit. I advocate abolishing public schools. But I'm not stupid enough to attack a candidate who is going to push us in the direction of more freedom than we have now and allow us to spend the money the government is taking from us.

dannno

12-15-2016, 05:02 PM

No.

You're just being dense.

What you are saying is LITERALLY the exact same thing as the following:

Let's say we had a 60% tax rate.

Trump wins the Presidency and wants to reduce the tax rate to 10%.

You call Trump a fascist and don't support him because you believe in a 0% tax rate. Trump's opponent believes in an 80% tax rate.

Have fun with your 80% tax rate, I'm going to hope for 10% even though I believe in 0% - because I'm smart enough to realize that 10% tax rate is better than an 80% tax rate. You apparently are not.

nikcers

12-15-2016, 05:09 PM

Bull$#@!. I advocate abolishing public schools. But I'm not stupid enough to attack a candidate who is going to push us in the direction of more freedom than we have now and allow us to spend the money the government is taking from us. So what you are saying is since we already have Obamacare its not going anywhere, and there is no getting rid of it, so we should just applaud any changes to Obamacare? I don't think any one of us is looking for a political win here, we are just looking for our country to win. We don't think the government is doing a good job educating our citizens. We don't think that it is the governments job? Do you understand that the governments job is to defend the united states?

PierzStyx

12-15-2016, 05:13 PM

BTW, this title "Ayn Rand-acolyte Donald Trump stacks his cabinet with fellow objectivists" is not on the opinion page. The author of the article's position atvthe Washington Post is National Political Correspondent.

The only way that trump has anything to do with Ayn Rand is if we are using him a sthe modern day personification of James Taggart, the politically connected millionaire that crippled his competition and maintained worth through government programs and power.

PierzStyx

12-15-2016, 05:18 PM

Giving taxpayers money back to spend it how they want is a "scheme"?? Compared to letting the government spend it? Are you insane?

Absolutely not. You stealing form em to give to Ender and then telling him who and what to spend it on is no better than you just keeping it and spending it yourself.

Ron Paul supports it, this is a forum dedicated to Ron Paul. Think about that before responding.

Ron Paul doesn't support government vouchers. On that subject he has said:

"The basic reason supporters of parental control of education should view Federal voucher programs with a high degree of skepticism is that vouchers are a creation of the government, not the market. Vouchers are a taxpayer-funded program benefiting a particular group of children selected by politicians and bureaucrats. Therefore, the Federal voucher program supported by many conservatives is little more than another tax-funded welfare program establishing an entitlement to a private school education. Vouchers thus raise the same constitutional and moral questions as other transfer programs. Yet, voucher supporters wonder why middle-class taxpayers, who have to sacrifice to provide a private school education to their children, balk at being forced to pay more taxes to provide a free private education for another child." https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/ron-paul/vouchers-are-welfare/

In 'Liberty Defined' he said:

"Competition is helpful in any endeavor. And this is true in education. The near monopoly control over the indoctrination of young people in our public school systems is counterbalanced by homeschooling, private schooling and education readily available on the Internet. The regulations on starting a variety of alternatives to public schooling are extremely tight and keep the market from operating as it might. The effort to provide more competition to the public school system has not solved the problem, though there are always a few who benefit from vouchers, tax credits, and charter schools. Too often these efforts are unfairly made available and do not eliminate the power of the state to control the curriculum. The best interim option for reform would be to give a tax credit for all educational expenses. Vouchers invite bureaucratic control of their usage and are unfairly distributed." Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p. 78-79 , Apr 19, 2011

I am a voluntarist, I don't even believe in government. But if we are going to have a government, the closer to a free market we can get the better. Your accusations are totally ludicrous.

My responses in bold.

Vouchers are no where near free markets and are not a step towards them.

dannno

12-15-2016, 06:10 PM

My responses in bold.

Vouchers are no where near free markets and are not a step towards them.

Dude, sorry, you are just completely wrong. Ron Paul didn't say anything I disagreed with, he also didn't say that vouchers were worse than what we had. He believes that there are better solutions than vouchers, and he is correct.

But vouchers, or letting people spend the money the government was going to spend for them anyway, IS a step in the right direction, it IS a step toward a more free market because people get to choose where the money is spent instead of government. It's really fucking simple. It's more freedom and it is better than what we have today. It is not a totally free market solution, but it is in the direction of the free market, inherently, because people are more free to make choices. If you can't understand this basic concept, I don't know how you understand the concept of freedom at all.

BTW, Rand Paul has supported a federal voucher system.

dannno

12-15-2016, 06:15 PM

So what you are saying is since we already have Obamacare its not going anywhere, and there is no getting rid of it, so we should just applaud any changes to Obamacare? I don't think any one of us is looking for a political win here, we are just looking for our country to win. We don't think the government is doing a good job educating our citizens. We don't think that it is the governments job? Do you understand that the governments job is to defend the united states?

Obamacare could be repealed - Public schooling, realistically, is not going to be repealed. It is an institution that is more than a century old. Obamacare is like 4 years old or some shit.

But I would in fact applaud any changes to Obamacare that created a more free health care system. I would prefer it to be abolished and for government to have nothing to do with health care.. But like I said, I would rather be at a 10% tax rate than an 80% tax rate, I would rather make Obamacare more free market friendly than make it less free market friendly.

I am for ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that moves us in the direction of freedom. If Trump moves us in the direction of freedom, I am for it. Hillary would have done everything to make us less free.

nikcers

12-15-2016, 07:35 PM

Obamacare could be repealed - Public schooling, realistically, is not going to be repealed. It is an institution that is more than a century old. Obamacare is like 4 years old or some $#@!.

But I would in fact applaud any changes to Obamacare that created a more free health care system. I would prefer it to be abolished and for government to have nothing to do with health care.. But like I said, I would rather be at a 10% tax rate than an 80% tax rate, I would rather make Obamacare more free market friendly than make it less free market friendly.

I am for ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that moves us in the direction of freedom. If Trump moves us in the direction of freedom, I am for it. Hillary would have done everything to make us less free. So what you saying is that you are no longer libertarian because you don't think its realistic, we disagree. You are not making a realistic comparison to what we have right now. What we have right now is a free market for private schools, and what you are asking is for the government to intervene in it.

H. E. Panqui

12-16-2016, 07:49 AM

danno asserts: 'Public schooling, realistically, is not going to be repealed. It is an institution that is more than a century old.'

:cool:

...'public' [more accurately, 'government'] schooling will certainly! never be repealed with folks like you around!...but don't you think it's possible to get THE FEDERAL GOV. OUT???..(you seem to set an awfully low bar for the stinking republicrat politicians for whom you apologize)

...again, YOU make this harder by $howering money/favor$ upon a certain class of people [people with children] who will fight like hell if someone in the future tries to take the freebie$ away...(think obombacare)

...it's the same dynamic as when someone tries to institute honest, level 'property tax' reform...the people who are exempt from paying property taxes (churches, etc. 'free riders' ad nauseam) are an obstacle to a just, egalitarian system...YOU appear to be another republicrat obstacle to sanity and justice in the realm of GOVERNMENT SCHOOLING..(not 'public education' as republicrat apologists put it..)

Superfluous Man

12-16-2016, 08:56 AM

Even if Trump's vouchers really did get funded by cuts made elsewhere in education (which is ridiculous to expect actually to happen), there are still a lot of downsides to them. It's not a definite move toward liberty. One of the catches will be more federal regulation of private schools and homeschooling. They're definitely not just going to give people money to spend however they want.

dannno

12-16-2016, 12:38 PM

So what you saying is that you are no longer libertarian because you don't think its realistic, we disagree. You are not making a realistic comparison to what we have right now.

lol, how am I not libertarian when I am the one advocating for more freedom? If we listened to you we would be zig heiling Hillary Clinton right now so you can stfu about who is more libertarian..

Now LISTEN - A 10% tax rate is not libertarian, but a libertarian can PREFER and advocate for a 10% tax rate if the current tax rate is higher, and if the other option or candidate is advocating an 80% tax rate, without losing their libertarian card... Please tell me what is so difficult for you to understand about that concept. Libertarians can and should advocate for more freedom.

I am more libertarian than you, when I said it's not realistic I mean with the current leadership it is not realistic. I would certainly love to see people elected who wanted to move in that direction, but right now it's not going to happen. But if they can move us in the direction of more freedom, that is a good thing, because the other option which you advocated for (Hillary) was less freedom.

What we have right now is a free market for private schools, and what you are asking is for the government to intervene in it.

lol... so the government gives people money back, and that is intervening in the market? Are you sure you are even a libertarian?

dannno

12-16-2016, 12:44 PM

danno asserts: 'Public schooling, realistically, is not going to be repealed. It is an institution that is more than a century old.'

:cool:

...'public' [more accurately, 'government'] schooling will certainly! never be repealed with folks like you around!...but don't you think it's possible to get THE FEDERAL GOV. OUT???..(you seem to set an awfully low bar for the stinking republicrat politicians for whom you apologize)

I didn't word that as best as I could, but what I meant was that with the current leadership, in the current environment public school is not going to be abolished. It's not because of ME.... I don't believe in public schools at all, I think schooling should be totally privatized. The reason is because of everybody else who believes in public schools. So in the mean time, I would like to have as free of a society as humanly possible. It is people like YOU who let this shit creep in the opposite direction because you won't advocate for more freedom because it isn't good enough for you, you want all or none. I'll take as much as possible, with the goal of having total freedom. With your strategy we would likely end up with none.

nikcers

12-16-2016, 12:54 PM

lol, how am I not libertarian when I am the one advocating for more freedom? If we listened to you we would be zig heiling Hillary Clinton right now so you can stfu about who is more libertarian..

Now LISTEN - A 10% tax rate is not libertarian, but a libertarian can PREFER and advocate for a 10% tax rate if the current tax rate is higher, and if the other option or candidate is advocating an 80% tax rate, without losing their libertarian card... Please tell me what is so difficult for you to understand about that concept. Libertarians can and should advocate for more freedom.

I am more libertarian than you, when I said it's not realistic I mean with the current leadership it is not realistic. I would certainly love to see people elected who wanted to move in that direction, but right now it's not going to happen. But if they can move us in the direction of more freedom, that is a good thing, because the other option which you advocated for (Hillary) was less freedom.

lol... so the government gives people money back, and that is intervening in the market? Are you sure you are even a libertarian? I advocated for Rand Paul on here, no one else, I am just against Trump -Trump is an authoritarian- he was against us during the last two elections. If you can't beat them join them I guess dannno, Cheney definitely approves. I don't know why you gotta attack me because you are big government now, just stop pretending like its libertarian to want government to intervene in private schools.

dannno

12-16-2016, 01:25 PM

I advocated for Rand Paul on here, no one else, I am just against Trump -Trump is an authoritarian- he was against us during the last two elections. If you can't beat them join them I guess dannno, Cheney definitely approves. I don't know why you gotta attack me because you are big government now, just stop pretending like its libertarian to want government to intervene in private schools.

You do a really great job NOT addressing other people's posts and spouting off a bunch of BS. The last thing I said in my last post was questioning why you think that giving people back their tax money to spend themselves is intervening in the market, and some how government making that decision is not?? Then you come back and claim that I want to intervene in the market by giving people their tax money back to spend themselves instead of government. You can't answer a fucking question, and you don't understand liberty or freedom very well.

Your other big problem is that you seem to be too caught up in people and not caught up enough in ideas and actions.

I support Rand on 99% of the issues. I support Trump on probably 10% or less of the issues, but I support the direction Trump is going, which is the direction toward freedom, on about 70% or 80% of the issues. I support Hillary on 0% of the issues, and she was going to take us in the direction that is opposed to freedom on pretty much every issue. So supporting Trump isn't so bad for a libertarian or somebody who believes in freedom, because it is apparent that he was a far better option and may actually leave us with more freedom than we had to start.

nikcers

12-16-2016, 03:03 PM

You do a really great job NOT addressing other people's posts and spouting off a bunch of BS. The last thing I said in my last post was questioning why you think that giving people back their tax money to spend themselves is intervening in the market, and some how government making that decision is not?? Then you come back and claim that I want to intervene in the market by giving people their tax money You aren't advocating for giving people back their tax money, you are advocating for the government to give someone a voucher and allowing private businesses to exchange that voucher for money.

In the plan that you are advocating for you are advocating for federal money to be spent in the private sector. Any time the government injects money into any industry it affects the price of goods in that industry. You can split hairs on the different outcomes of the intervention but it is a government intervention in the market place which will distort the price control and pressures of supply and demand.

dannno

12-16-2016, 03:29 PM

You aren't advocating for giving people back their tax money, you are advocating for the government to give someone a voucher and allowing private businesses to exchange that voucher for money.

Like I've said about ten times now, I am advocating the government give people the tax money they would have spent on their education, where they would have had no choice how it is spent, they now get to choose how the money that was going to be spent on their education. That increases consumer choice, it increases freedom.

I don't think you are actually a libertarian, you don't understand the basic concepts of liberty and why it is important.

In the plan that you are advocating for you are advocating for federal money to be spent in the private sector. Any time the government injects money into any industry it affects the price of goods in that industry. You can split hairs on the different outcomes of the intervention but it is a government intervention in the market place which will distort the price control and pressures of supply and demand.

Dude, you are completely wrong.

The money government is giving to people to spend is already going to be spent in the public sector on education, so why not give it to people and allow them to choose whether they might want to spend it in the private sector instead? It's a choice that people make instead of government, for themselves, and it is inherently more freedom than just letting the government decide how and where it is spent.

dannno

12-16-2016, 03:33 PM

In the plan that you are advocating for you are advocating for federal money to be spent in the private sector. Any time the government injects money into any industry it affects the price of goods in that industry. You can split hairs on the different outcomes of the intervention but it is a government intervention in the market place which will distort the price control and pressures of supply and demand.

Wow, you need an economics lesson.

Yes, what will happen is more people will choose private schools because public schools suck. Then the prices will go up for private schools, like you said. But it doesn't stop there, like you think it does. What then happens is more private schools open up - schools that people actually want to send their kids to, because now people get to choose where their kids go to school. As more private schools open up, the prices go back down because there is more competition.

The result is that you have something closer to a free market, private education system than what we have currently. It's not perfect, but it more closely resembles the free market and that is a laudable goal in our current system.

H. E. Panqui

12-19-2016, 05:11 PM

danno tries to sell the trump snake-oil... Now LISTEN - A 10% tax rate is not libertarian, but a libertarian can PREFER and advocate for a 10% tax rate if the current tax rate is higher, and if the other option or candidate is advocating an 80% tax rate, without losing their libertarian card...

:rolleyes:

...it is my belief/experience that any miserable, puny 'difference' :rolleyes: between the size of government $pending [and therefore 'taxation'] advocated by stinking hillary clinton and the d's and your stinking trump and the r's is such that only a piddling republicrat fool could/would quibble...

...i suspect the beat goe$ on with your stinking trump but that you will concoct some trumped up apology when your puppet increases outlay$ from the dept. of :rolleyes: 'education'....and every other department...

...but you never know, right? :rolleyes:...i mean these republicans can be very surprising in a good way, right? :rolleyes:

...i know i'm done arguing with you (although i could be coaxed];)...until the number$ are revealed ;)...[to the extent they are ever honestly revealed]

Superfluous Man

12-19-2016, 07:05 PM

helmuth_hubener

01-02-2017, 10:45 AM

Where I live I am pretty sure parents get to choose schools, it wasn't something that was there when I was a kid you had to lie about your address. I was pretty sure this was a state thing though.
You are "pretty sure" of this because you

• have no kids and
• know nothing about it

and finally, worst of all, are

• perfectly cool with being "pretty sure" about things about which you know nothing.

Glad I could clear that up!

nikcers

01-02-2017, 10:51 AM

You are "pretty sure" of this because you

• have no kids and
• know nothing about it

and finally, worst of all, are

• perfectly cool with being "pretty sure" about things about which you know nothing.

Glad I could clear that up!
I live in Nevada where I am pretty sure there is a 2nd amendment, I could clear that up if you want come by some time.

The Education Savings Account Program (ESA) provides a means for Nevada Parents with children enrolled in a public/charter school to choose a different option to meet their educational needs. A parent who wishes to choose an alternative to a public school simply can apply for an Education Savings Account and a percentage of what the state funds for their child’s public education will be deposited into an account for that child. The funds can then be used for education related expenses at approved participating entities. Nevada’s ESA program is being administered by the State Treasurer’s Office (STO), who is responsible for establishing the regulations, timelines, and program successes.

A student must attend a Nevada public/charter school for at least 100 uninterrupted school days immediately prior to submitting an application for an account. For more information on the program or to see eligibility requirements, please download a copy of our Parent Handbook (http://www.nevadatreasurer.gov/uploadedFiles/nevadatreasurergov/content/SchoolChoice/Parents/Parent_Handbook.pdf).

ESA funds may be used for educational expenses such as: private school tuition, tuition at eligible institutions, distance education, curriculum, tutoring, fees, transportation, specialized services or therapies for students with a disability

helmuth_hubener

01-02-2017, 10:51 AM

Global warming "skepticism" is just an anti-science position.

I am very skeptical of the global warming story. I am very pro-science.

Please explain.

helmuth_hubener

01-02-2017, 10:58 AM

I live in Nevada where I am pretty sure there is a 2nd amendment, I could clear that up if you want come by some time.

So your response is

• to threaten to shoot me and
• to demonstrate just how thorough your lack of understanding is.

You just volunteer it! Like that! I snap my fingers, you show your ignorance. Come on, niKKKers! Don't make it too easy!

Oh, and just what is the second amendment to the Nevada Constitution? Hmm?

helmuth_hubener

01-02-2017, 11:19 AM

Oh, and just what is the second amendment to the Nevada Constitution? Hmm?

I'll give you a clue: it actually has to do with Education!

Oh, you'll never get it.

nikcers

01-02-2017, 11:34 AM

You just volunteer it! Like that! I snap my fingers, you show your ignorance. Come on, niKKKers! Don't make it too easy!

http://i.imgur.com/lbLcreE.gif

Weston White

01-04-2017, 01:12 AM

So using public offices to counter the agenda of those that preceded them in those public offices becomes anti-government?

https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder608/19092608.jpg

anaconda

01-04-2017, 01:16 AM

Goldman Sachs is anti-government?

anti-50 state government?

helmuth_hubener

01-04-2017, 09:06 AM

http://i.imgur.com/lbLcreE.gif
Pop quiz, niKKKers: what was this man's name?

I am sure that you believe this animation means something, dear. And I'm sure it's hilarious to you, and for that I'm glad. I imagine perhaps you also expected and hoped that with it, our conversation would end, with me in bewilderment at your posting of irrelevant stupidity.

Certainly I am inclined to let it end.

I do not like associating with certain types, such as (for a random example) bitter, single females who are also known child abusers.

But just to come out and state what is of course already obvious and well-known to everyone with any children in the government "school" propaganda-camp system you, niKKKi, are so desperate to defend and protect:

One cannot simply send one's child to whatever school district one wishes. If one lives in, say, the Las Vegas School District, and if it is terrible (it is) and you would rather your child attend a slightly-less-awful propaganda camp you have identified in a nearby suburb. If you are not in the boundaries? Ya can't. Ya can't, niKKKers. Ya just can't.

What you will have to do is to move. Then your child can go there.

Selling one's house and buying a new one solely and entirely for the school district is actually a pretty common occurrence among people like me. You haven't heard of it, of course. Everything is just hunky-dory with the school system in your circles. We already have plenty of choice. Plenty of self-actualization and celebration of diversity. Stop slamming the skools, dannno! How dare you disrespect our Glorious Teachers?

nikcers

01-04-2017, 09:23 AM

I am sure that you believe this animation means something, dear. And I'm sure it's hilarious to you, and for that I'm glad. I imagine perhaps you also expected and hoped that with it, our conversation would end, with me in bewilderment at your posting of irrelevant stupidity.

Certainly I am inclined to let it end.

I do not like associating with certain types, such as (for a random example) bitter, single females who are also known child abusers.

But just to come out and state what is of course already obvious and well-known to everyone with any children in the government "school" propaganda-camp system you, niKKKi, are so desperate to defend and protect:

One cannot simply send one's child to whatever school district one wishes. If one lives in, say, the Las Vegas School District, and if it is terrible (it is) and you would rather your child attend a slightly-less-awful propaganda camp you have identified in a nearby suburb. If you are not in the boundaries? Ya can't. Ya can't, niKKKers. Ya just can't.

What you will have to do is to move. Then your child can go there.

Selling one's house and buying a new one solely and entirely for the school district is actually a pretty common occurrence among people like me. You haven't heard of it, of course. Everything is just hunky-dory with the school system in your circles. We already have plenty of choice. Plenty of self-actualization and celebration of diversity. Stop slamming the skools, dannno! How dare you disrespect our Glorious Teachers?
I'm not lying dude. If you think the federal government is going to fix schools then I am going to have to disagree with you. As for whats in Nevada this is something you can look up it makes no sense to argue with someone who lives there.

http://itsyourchoice.ccsd.net/open-enrollment/
http://ccsd.net/schools/open-enrollment/resources/open-enrollment-faq.pdf
Open Enrollment provides parents of CCSDstudents with another choice. Schools with available seats will be advertisedfor the purpose of allowing parents/guardians of students who do not reside inthe attendance zones to express interest in enrolling their child(ren) there.

The Education Savings Account Program (ESA) provides a means for Nevada Parents with children enrolled in a public/charter school to choose a different option to meet their educational needs. A parent who wishes to choose an alternative to a public school simply can apply for an Education Savings Account and a percentage of what the state funds for their child’s public education will be deposited into an account for that child. The funds can then be used for education related expenses at approved participating entities. Nevada’s ESA program is being administered by the State Treasurer’s Office (STO), who is responsible for establishing the regulations, timelines, and program successes.

euphemia

01-04-2017, 11:05 AM

It looks like he is filling many positions with people that are against the department. Change will never occur if those departments have another status quo leader. Will all these appointments, Trumps true colors/goals will become evident very quickly. He keeps saying it will happen very quickly. I bet things will happen very quickly. First day on the job and everyone will pretty much hate their boss. This is good if you want to get rid of them or change the way things have been getting done.

I totally agree with this. Trump has put some brilliant people into important positions. Some of them want to work themselves right out of a job, and that's exactly what we want. This is how a businessman consolodates. Goldman Sachs ties are what they are, but they also represent people who know how to make the numbers balance effectively.

And let's just remember that almost none of the big shots, including the Pauls, had a lot of good to say about Trump. Trump knows he has taken on gigantic responsibility, and I don't blame him from bringing in people he personally trusts.

I cannot wait for January 20, 2017. I want to see them break the huddle and go form the line.

helmuth_hubener

01-04-2017, 12:00 PM

I'm not lying dude. If you think the federal government is going to fix schools then I am going to have to disagree with you. As for whats in Nevada this is something you can look up

You keep on lazily copy-pasting utterly irrelevant snippets, revelations you have received from two-second Google searches. In fact, scratch the plural -- the same one repeatedly!

Find someone who has kids and ask them to try sending their kid to Henderson schools without living in Henderson.

Just try.

it makes no sense to argue with someone who lives there.

I am just arguing against someone who is completely and totally wrong.

You are arguing against someone who is right. On a topic you have no experience in whatsoever.

Tell me, whose arguing makes more sense?

It's OK. Maybe you can do another Google search. Yeah, that's it. That will "prove your point" about how terrific, open, and choicy the government propaganda camps are.

If you think the federal government is going to fix schools then I am going to have to disagree with you. Ha, ha, ha! Hilarious re-framing attempt! Unfortunately, you are the one defending the Government Skools from defamation, not me. I have been here on RPF for close to a decade and everyone here knows I hate the government schools. I loathe them with a passion you will never know -- being left-leaning, you don't have all that much of a gripe against them, since they're leftist institutions.

You think they just need to be "fixed".

How cute.

I think they need to be firebombed, demolished, and plowed over with bulldozers, and then salt sown upon the ruins.

euphemia

01-04-2017, 12:07 PM

I think they need to be firebombed, demolished, and plowed over with bulldozers, and then salt sown upon the ruins.

And who will then educate those children? Don't say their parents, because their parents and grandparents grew up under that system and they can barely read themselves.

I don't think violent language and imagery does anything to advance your argument.

helmuth_hubener

01-04-2017, 02:12 PM

And who will then educate those children? Don't say their parents, because their parents and grandparents grew up under that system and they can barely read themselves. The majority of Americans can read. And regardless, an unkempt, illiterate, retarded, homeless drunk would do a far sight better than the worthless, evil, socialist, human dross who are "educating" them in the propaganda camps today. One may be stupid. The other actively glorifies Stupid, revels in it, mandates it, and uses extremely refined and sophisticated propaganda techniques to prevent any child from escaping without their State-required helping of Stupid.

I don't think violent language and imagery does anything to advance your argument.Ask me if I care.

euphemia

01-04-2017, 02:45 PM

I don't think you do care, and clearly you have not lived in places where there are huge pockets of illiteracy. I've done some of nonprofit work having to do with literacy. If you ask at-risk kids about reading material in the home, many of them will tell you they have never seen any in their home. And they aren't kidding. They do not get bills or periodicals because their parents or grandparents don't know how to read and have been on public assistance for generations.

I think the new SoE will be very good and she will make sure kids are learning. I think we are about 40 years away from a fully private or home school model.

Ben Carson's mother did not know how to read. Lots of professional athletes graduate from high school and go on to play in college, and they do not have the reading skills of an possum.

helmuth_hubener

01-04-2017, 03:18 PM

I don't think you do care No. Definitely not. Anyone on RPF in the year 2016 who is still in favor of government propaganda camps is what we call a Lost Soul. I do not care whether my language and imagery resonate with and convince such people. Nothing will convince such people.

and clearly you have not lived in places where there are huge pockets of illiteracy.O RLY? That's nice. Does India count? :p

Maybe you don't know everything there is to know about me. Eh?

The more you know, the more you hate the government.

The more you see, the more you will hate the government.

To tell me "you hate my pet government program too much, you must not be widely-traveled and -informed enough" is backwards from reality.

Lots of professional athletes graduate from high school and go on to play in college, and they do not have the reading skills of an possum. That "argument" is floccinaucinihilipilificatious. This is what I have to say to that:

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/host.madison.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/bb/3bb76c1b-f061-5acb-9db5-f2ad940dd7a2/551bf231d0c9d.image.jpg

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/city-life/nigel-hayes-picks-dictionary-com-s-word-of-the-day/article_9f01331e-0b99-11e5-9874-6fd232efb4ae.html