Tell me: Am I frickin' Dreaming?

Jarod said:
But what about his economic plan is scary? What would he do? I really want to know so I can form an opinion.
Click to expand...


Privitize and deregulate virtually everything.

Basically, orthodox Libertarians want the country to go back to 1929. The entire movement is about undoing the New Deal.
 
Cypress said:
Privitize and deregulate virtually everything.

Basically, orthodox Libertarians want the country to go back to 1929. The entire movement is about undoing the New Deal.
Click to expand...

Yes, read The Jungle to find out just how fabu this will work out for the average worker, you remember them right, the people?
 
Darla said:
Yes, read The Jungle to find out just how fabu this will work out for the average worker, you remember them right, the people?
Click to expand...


bingo.

Yeah, that's what bugged me about the F to F movie. He began with the declaration that in "1913 America was a Free country. Then the bankers took over"


Sorry. I don't think 1913 was the golden age of american freedom, and for american workers. Let alone, for women, blacks, and people of color.
 
Darla said:
Jarod, do you understand what a radical libertarian is?

If he could get any of this through congress, and he could not, but if he could, this is what he would do:

Elimiate the income tax and the irs.
Eliminate SS
Eliminate Medicare
Eliminate Medicaid
Eliminate child welfare
Eliminate section 8
Eliminate any and all social safety net programs
Eliminate labor laws
Eliminate labor regulations
Eliminate business regulations

You should read about him specifically, and libertarians in general. Most of them are out of their freaking minds, ron paul is literally bug fuck nuts, and if you can't see it in his eyes when he is talking, you should be able to.

there are many libertarians who are not radical, and actually have some humanity in them, he is not one of them.
Click to expand...

Darla, I really think you need to listen to Ron Paul some more. He has talked about Social Security and realizes we are already dependent on it. He knows there is no way to effectivly get rid of it and would not. In fact, he's probably a bigger defender of it than you thought. The reason he thinks Social Security shouldnt be run by government is because government trys to decieve you into believeing you are saving for your future, but really they are just spending it like any other money they bring in. But, he would probably be the best candidate to clean that up.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst012405.htm

Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits.
Vote to pass a bill that would reduce the percentage of Social Security benefits that is taxable from 85 to 50 percent for single taxpayers with incomes over $25,000 and married couples with incomes over $32,000. The revenues that would be lost for the Medicare trust fund would be replaced by money from the general fund.

Reference: Bill sponsored by Archer, R-TX; Bill HR 4865 ; vote number 2000-450 on Jul 27, 2000


I would address the other issues too but I think this one was the biggest that most people would take issue with.
 
DigitalDave said:
Darla, I really think you need to listen to Ron Paul some more. He has talked about Social Security and realizes we are already dependent on it. He knows there is no way to effectivly get rid of it and would not. In fact, he's probably a bigger defender of it than you thought. The reason he thinks Social Security shouldnt be run by government is because government trys to decieve you into believeing you are saving for your future, but really they are just spending it like any other money they bring in. But, he would probably be the best candidate to clean that up.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst012405.htm

Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits.
Vote to pass a bill that would reduce the percentage of Social Security benefits that is taxable from 85 to 50 percent for single taxpayers with incomes over $25,000 and married couples with incomes over $32,000. The revenues that would be lost for the Medicare trust fund would be replaced by money from the general fund.

Reference: Bill sponsored by Archer, R-TX; Bill HR 4865 ; vote number 2000-450 on Jul 27, 2000


I would address the other issues too but I think this one was the biggest that most people would take issue with.
Click to expand...

Dave, I'm not going to listen to him, at all. And I would never fall for voting for someone to "protect" a program they believe with all of their hearts, should never have been implemented.

I'm going to vote for someone who shares MY ideals. A liberal.
 
DigitalDave said:
Darla, I really think you need to listen to Ron Paul some more. He has talked about Social Security and realizes we are already dependent on it. He knows there is no way to effectivly get rid of it and would not. In fact, he's probably a bigger defender of it than you thought. The reason he thinks Social Security shouldnt be run by government is because government trys to decieve you into believeing you are saving for your future, but really they are just spending it like any other money they bring in. But, he would probably be the best candidate to clean that up.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst012405.htm

Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits.
Vote to pass a bill that would reduce the percentage of Social Security benefits that is taxable from 85 to 50 percent for single taxpayers with incomes over $25,000 and married couples with incomes over $32,000. The revenues that would be lost for the Medicare trust fund would be replaced by money from the general fund.

Reference: Bill sponsored by Archer, R-TX; Bill HR 4865 ; vote number 2000-450 on Jul 27, 2000


I would address the other issues too but I think this one was the biggest that most people would take issue with.
Click to expand...

His ideology and goal is to undermine the social safety net, the new deal, and the important and neccessary reforms that came with it.

It doesn't matter if he thinks he has to chip away slowly at it. At least, not to me.
 
Cypress said:
His ideology and goal is to undermine the social safety net, the new deal, and the important and neccessary reforms that came with it.

It doesn't matter if he thinks he has to chip away slowly at it. At least, not to me.
Click to expand...

dude, a ponzi scheme is not a safety net.
 
Darla said:
Dave, I'm not going to listen to him, at all. And I would never fall for voting for someone to "protect" a program they believe with all of their hearts, should never have been implemented.

I'm going to vote for someone who shares MY ideals. A liberal.
Click to expand...

That is fine, but I think it's a bit of a smear to say he would 'get rid of it'. That's decieving to others who might really be wanting to know his views.
 
Dave the ss surplus spending will not be an issue much longer. Congress will have to come up with money to pay the money they spent back, that will be a big issue.
 
the ss security system is a mechanism for using the elderly to victimize the youth. as the baby boomers age, they will have the votes to keep the younger workers enslaved in the system supporting them, no matter what, no matter how hard they have to work. Selfishness is ugly.
 
LOL, I pretty much paid my own way and never expect to draw out as much as I paid in.

AHZ we are gonna need a lot of young legal immigrants to keep the pyramid going.
 
Cypress said:
His ideology and goal is to undermine the social safety net, the new deal, and the important and neccessary reforms that came with it.

It doesn't matter if he thinks he has to chip away slowly at it. At least, not to me.
Click to expand...

Of course he undermines the program, hell I don't even know if I will ever get to see the money I invested into it. With the baby boomer generation coming to age to collect, its now to a point where its much harder to support a program like that. That doesn't mean he'll get rid of it. We need to start creating policy that will protect the funds we actually put into it, or allow us to decide for ourselves. I don't see why so many people have a problem with me maybe wanting to opt-out and support my own retirement. My generation is scared as hell that we aren't going to have it at all when it comes our time.
 
DigitalDave said:
Of course he undermines the program, hell I don't even know if I will ever get to see the money I invested into it. With the baby boomer generation coming to age to collect, its now to a point where its much harder to support a program like that. That doesn't mean he'll get rid of it. We need to start creating policy that will protect the funds we actually put into it, or allow us to decide for ourselves. I don't see why so many people have a problem with me maybe wanting to opt-out and support my own retirement. My generation is scared as hell that we aren't going to have it at all when it comes our time.
Click to expand...

Because if you opt out, then we definitely won't have the money to fund the baby boomer's and they are the generation who paid for the so-called "greatest generation" to retire, and they have been paying into it all of these years, and don't deserve to get screwed, because you 20 somethings have decided it's all about you.
 
uscitizen said:
LOL, I pretty much paid my own way and never expect to draw out as much as I paid in.

AHZ we are gonna need a lot of young legal immigrants to keep the pyramid going.
Click to expand...

I've already began investing into a 401K at the age of 24. I don't want to rely on a program that I know is being used in a way to make a budget plan look better than it is.
 
DigitalDave said:
I've already began investing into a 401K at the age of 24. I don't want to rely on a program that I know is being used in a way to make a budget plan look better than it is.
Click to expand...

Good for you. I have been in a 401k for ten years. We're all free to do that, if we can afford to. It's certainly smart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top