"We've come to take our government back" Rand Paul

[Giambattista]

The fact that Tea Partiers cannot talk to the specifics of policy speaks volumes.

What exactly are you talking about? The general Tea Party goer we see represented by mainstream media and liberals in particular?

Are you speaking about Dr. Paul (either of them!)?

And why do you have to use such large print to make your point? Are you a Republican in disguise?

 

[786]

The sarcastic wink at the end should only serve to remind people that this is all a con job.

Its in all my posts practically. ?

I believe they are offering 'solutions', you state. But what is being solved? What does the solution accomplish?

What is being solved?

Lets see-

Government involvement is Agriculture, Energy, Education?

We have a Department of Energy that was made to make us energy independent- we have wasted all that money for how many years? And we are more energy dependent more than ever.

Waste of money... Stopping waste is part of the solution.... Guess what, we're in debt!

So what is it about conservatives that when faced with a complex discussion of ideas, they just reassert an idiotic talking point and call it a contribution? Really, that's just disgusting. Embarrassing, really. Do you look at yourself in the mirror with those lying eyes?

Well well. You wanna cool off first? I'm not a Republican. Democrat solution to everything is, lets pour money on it which is hardly a solution. They don't understand anything about economics.

Oh we're going to tax the tanning industry... Those dumbasses don't even know that there is no such thing as taxing a 'specific industry'. All taxes get passed on to the rest of the economy in the long run because an industry is not separate from the rest of the economy. You can hurt one industry directly but you hurt the whole economy in the process.

By the way... Let's pass cap and trade
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4

We have an awesome Economy don't we? So he realizes that his actions will force an industry into changes that raise cost. Any time you put a pressure on the economy by regulations you most likely increase costs. And then you wonder why people are against government regulations? They need to regulate themselves and the FED first.

Or maybe you might tell us what those solutions actually are.

I guess it all starts with the Federal Reserve. An organization set up to create a stable money and low unemployment. From its inception it has devalued the currency by more than 90%, and it has created fake bubbles and has led to this creation of amazing unemployment. Its a failure on all accounts.

Democratic solution? Give more power to the Fed!
Republican solution? They actually don't give a shit. (except Ron Paul)

Why Democrats love the Fed? Because its their ATM for Welfare.
Why Republicans love the Fed? Because its their ATM for Wars.

In a state of crisis why both parties love the Fed? Because neither one wants a depression on their watch.

Solution: We need a better monetary system.... (the only real thing that the government can do but doesn't want to)
-----

Lets look at the employment area-

Fed creates bubbles which means there are bubbles in employment. When they burst you have unemployment.


Solution: We need a better monetary system.... (the only real thing that the government can do but doesn't want to)


Minimum wage laws- guess what unemployment would be much lower if there weren't minimum wage laws... 'Oh we must protect the workers'.. this protectiveness is exactly that screws an economy. If we didn't have such an inflationary monetary system we wouldn't need these minimum wage laws.. These 'minimum wages' are sufficient anymore precisely because of the inflation. Instead of solving the problem from its roots (FED), we always go for the straws. The government is best at it. It 'solves' a problem, only to realize we must solve it again. And again. And every-time it consumes more and more of the GDP. So instead of growing the economy we grow the government.

----

Lets look at inflation

The FED just increases the money supply and pumps it in the market... that is by definition inflation even if 'prices do go up'. They will once the world catches up. This is evident by what the dollar was worth in 1913 and what it is worth now.

By the way the steady decline in purchasing power thanks to inflation leads to the money people saved for retirement worth less and less which hurts the seniors in a way you probably can't imagine.

The increase in living costs due to this inflation also increasing Social Security costs year-over-year.

It increases cost on all levels pretty much.

Solution: We need a better monetary system.... (the only real thing that the government can do but doesn't want to)
----

Lets look at Industry

We subsidize industries by marginalizing others. There is no way to subsidize ethanol and not marginalize other competition, while also not raising the cost of ethanol in the process. Although by not creating an employment bubble in the process.

Solution: Get out of the industries (i.e reduce the government)

----

Immigration Problem

We force hospitals to take care of illegals, we give them citizenship on birth. What stops them from coming here giving birth, and then getting 'legalized'. Or coming and taking advantage of free services.

So you're telling me if someone on the street is handing out free $100 bills that the guy across the street won't come?

The incentive creates the immigration problem, it helps create a burden on the Healthcare system and the cost.


Solution: Take out the mandates (i.e repeal your bullshit laws, i.e reduce government influence)
---

Healthcare

We have the FDA sitting on their asses unable to finish things in a timely manner. On 'average' it takes about 12 years to bring a drug to market. There is some serious money going into this.

Doctors are being sued for ridiculous things, for which they need to buy expensive insurance the cost of which is passed onto consumers.

Government talks big about breaking monopolies but doesn't do shit about the AMA which has a virtual monopoly on the number of doctors we have and the schools we have.

Our Medicare program-

We're charged the maximum with pointless tests... The pointlessness of so much creates a demand in the industry and increasing the salaries of those involved. Not only is there cost associating with pointless tests, but it also creates an irresponsible allotment of economic resources.

Solution: Deal with the real problems. Allowing everyone to participate won't actually 'control costs'. It may get rid of some waste but that is the best it will do. Cost will still rise.

more of the same blind, idiotic madness that got us into this situation in the first place.

And that would be? The only thing that I see as being 'more of the same blind, idiotic madness' is the support of both parties by this populace.

After all, the "solutions" are so obvious that you shouldn't have to put any effort into it.

You do put effort in it.. You jeapordize your career, you head into a severe depression... Instead of just borrow and spend. Here's $4500 and buy a car.

The people put effort into it by actually producing things and start to pay of the debt.

What you want to do is have the government put 'effort' into it.. But its the people which makes the economy grow, not the government. The people must put effort into living responsibly and so must the government.

So tell us, 786, what, exactly, are these solutions? Or are you just huffing and spewing vapor like the rest of the Tea Party movement?

You don't have to write such a dramatic post. Quite frankly your post is a representation of what our government has become. Worthless puff.

I could have more efficiently written all of that in to one thing: 'What solutions does this offer?'

Government thinks its a genius, it can subsidize whatever it wants and its good.

Not only were you inefficient in getting your point across, you ended up wasting my time by having me read it. But obviously the best way is for the government to give you money so that you become better at writing :shrug: (by the way you're a much better and eloquent writer than me and I'm sure this post has a lot of spelling errors)

Peace be you

 

[quadraphonics]

Government involvement is Agriculture, Energy, Education?

What about it?

We have a Department of Energy that was made to make us energy independent-

I don't recall anything about energy independence in the Department of Energy's charter. But then I haven't read it very closely.

The DOE does a lot of things, not least of which include designing, building and maintaining the country's nuclear weapons arsenal, building and maintaining maritime nuclear reactors for the US Navy, overseeing nuclear waste handling, storage and disposal, clean-up of radioactive and toxic contamination from the nuclear weapons industry, basic research, etc.

Which of those would you propose to cut? Bear in mind that most of the expenditure is on nuclear weapons and related activities.

Solution: We need a better monetary system

What do you propose?

The incentive creates the immigration problem, it helps create a burden on the Healthcare system and the cost.

Immigration isn't a problem in the first place, and the incentive is the prospect of employment at wages far exceeding what's available back home, not the prospect of some free emergency care when you get injured.

Meanwhile, Mexico already provides its citizens with universal healthcare - their constitution has required such since its drafting in 1917. Mexico is far ahead of the United States in terms of the affordability of high quality health care. There are insurance companies in California that sell policies requiring people to travel to Mexico to obtain cheaper treatment. Medical tourism to Mexico is routine, as the costs of treatments and medicines are dramatically lower than in the United States.

The idea that Mexicans are illegally immigrating to the US for healthcare is absurd. In most cases, they end up worse off in that regard than if they'd stayed at home. The incentive is all about getting a job that pays better than you can make at home.

 

[joepistole]

What exactly are you talking about? The general Tea Party goer we see represented by mainstream media and liberals in particular?

Are you speaking about Dr. Paul (either of them!)?

And why do you have to use such large print to make your point? Are you a Republican in disguise?

Any of them, what are they going to do (specifically) to reduce the national debt? What legislation would they draft? Look at Buffalo Roam's response...all grand generalities.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2545993&postcount=27

As for the large print, I letting my Republican side run wild.

 

[nietzschefan]

You guys are so sliding to civil war. Rural VS Urban. Don't believe any of the racism rhetoric on either side (it's Minority/dittoheads/pot stirrers) they want you to fight for a host of reasons.

 

[joepistole]

You guys are so sliding to civil war. Rural VS Urban. Don't believe any of the racism rhetoric on either side (it's Minority/dittoheads/pot stirrers) they want you to fight for a host of reasons.

That reminds me, what ever happened to the Tea Partiers who were forming their own state funded milita? God I hope they do form the milita. And I want to see their faces when President Obama activates their unit for service in Afganistan. I can see it now, a bunch of old white men carrying around their arms in the Afgan wildlerness. Hey Joe, ya gotta six pack? See any deer? How about quail?

 

[786]

The DOE does a lot of things, not least of which include designing, building and maintaining the country's nuclear weapons arsenal, building and maintaining maritime nuclear reactors for the US Navy, overseeing nuclear waste handling, storage and disposal, clean-up of radioactive and toxic contamination from the nuclear weapons industry, basic research, etc.

All of them. I would transfer the 'designing, building, and maintaining of the 'country's nuclear weapons arsenal' to the Military.

I would also transfer the 'maritime nuclear reactors for the US Navy' to the US Navy.

'Overseeing nuclear waste handling'- I would totally get rid of it, and let the States deal with it

'Clean-up of radioactive and toxic contamination'- to the State.

Basic Research- This is an automatic cut.

Which of those would you propose to cut? Bear in mind that most of the expenditure is on nuclear weapons and related activities.

As stated above.

What do you propose?

A currency linked to a basket of physical things that hold real value rather than paper that can be printed to oblivion. I'm not proposing a 'gold standard' but a 'physical standard'. A basket of physical things that may/should include gold and silver, and probably some of the agricultural things like wheat and stuff.

Allowing competing currencies to the US Dollar would be part of the transition because its not impossible to get rid of the Federal Reserve Dollar in a minute.

Immigration isn't a problem in the first place, and the incentive is the prospect of employment at wages far exceeding what's available back home, not the prospect of some free emergency care when you get injured.

Really? I don't know why people are are always (even Congress) is trying to address a problem that doesn't exist...

Wages are obviously an incentive, but how could they live here as illegals? So they're all paying for their healthcare costs. Why the resentment towards illegals if they're not a burden. And you think these illegals are being paid a good amount? If I knew someone was an illegal I would pay him/her $5 hr and have them work like crazy. But I guess most Americans are stupid businessmen and pay them $20 hr?

Meanwhile, Mexico already provides its citizens with universal healthcare - their constitution has required such since its drafting in 1917. Mexico is far ahead of the United States in terms of the affordability of high quality health care.

Its really high quality? Do you go there to get your healthcare there.. I usually hear people coming here for better quality.

There are insurance companies in California that sell policies requiring people to travel to Mexico to obtain cheaper treatment. Medical tourism to Mexico is routine, as the costs of treatments and medicines are dramatically lower than in the United States.

Do they have the same level of regulations on the medical industry as we do?

The idea that Mexicans are illegally immigrating to the US for healthcare is absurd. In most cases, they end up worse off in that regard than if they'd stayed at home. The incentive is all about getting a job that pays better than you can make at home.

The point is that they get on to the system, and that increases healthcare costs. Apparently Mexicans can work for less than the minimum wage and survive. Americans can't?

Americans need to get off the high seat.

Peace be unto you

 

[John99]

You guys are so sliding to civil war. Rural VS Urban. Don't believe any of the racism rhetoric on either side (it's Minority/dittoheads/pot stirrers) they want you to fight for a host of reasons.

Well first is to realize that people some (many) wake up pissed from the second they roll out of bed and there is nothing anyone can do about that. We all need to get used to it because the larger the population, the larger the number of malcontents, sociopaths and serial killers there are. Because the only alternative is totally limiting freedom.

 

[John99]

Speaking of limiting freedom, many fascists here scare the crap out of me. I used to be a liberal but then i read sciforums and now i am turning into a conservative and in a year or two i will call myself conservative, once and for all because like i said these people are like little Hitlers.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

missing the point as usual. the point is that there are christians in Africa. Ethopia being the center point of christianity. it and the surrounding countries like kenya are christian. in fact Kenya is 77% christian.



How is he a sophist for pointing out a legiatmite fact you wish to ignore?

Only from you pj.

Did you happen to know that Islam is the second most widely practiced religion in Ethiopia? or that Abyssinia, (modern day Ethiopia) was over run by Muslims 1530–31, or that the Jewish community of Ethiopia predated the Christian.

“Once they were kings. A half million strong, they matched their faith with fervor and out-matched the Moslem and Christian tribesmen around them to rule the mountain highlands around Lake Tana. They called themselves Beta Israel"

joe didn't know that until just now.

 

[iceaura]

Well well. You wanna cool off first? I'm not a Republican.

? Let's see:

Democrat solution to everything is, lets pour money on it which is hardly a solution.

Republican Party campaign slogan, parroted.

The incentive creates the immigration problem, it helps create a burden on the Healthcare system and the cost.

Republican Party campaign rhetoric, parroted. The incentive for illegal immigration is a stick and carrot setup by US corporate power - NAFTA and "free trade" ruination of the local economies of Mexico, and the corporate demand for cheap and abused labor along the border and in the US. A million people a year don't wander into the US to have babies and get sick or injured here - that's a pretty silly idea, actually. Kind of embarrassing to get caught repeating it, one would think.

Solution: Take out the mandates (i.e repeal your bullshit laws, i.e reduce government influence)

Republican political rhetoric. That's what NAFTA and the maquiladoras did - reduced government influence over corporate power across the Mexican border. With immediate consequences fairly describable as "disastrous".

Any time you put a pressure on the economy by regulations you most likely increase costs. And then you wonder why people are against government regulations?

Straight from the Reaganites, Republican Party mantra parroted.

It's false, of course.

Regulated banking, for example, is far less costly than unregulated banking. When the S&Ls were heavily regulated, they made goodly profits lending money at 5 and 6% - very low cost banking.

Regulated mining and fishing and logging and oil drilling is much cheaper, with much lower net costs, than unregulated mining and fishing and logging abnd oil drilling.

People are still, even after 2008, against "government regulation" of corporate power, because they have been ideologically swindled by the propaganda wing of those corporate powers - and swindled so flagrantly and so often over so many years now, by the same routine scam run by the same people, that they are apparently smply too embarrassed to admit what has happened.

Minimum wage laws- guess what unemployment would be much lower if there weren't minimum wage laws...

Unemployment would be meaningless without minimum wage laws. The Pharoah's Egypt and US slave plantations had full employment.

Fed creates bubbles - - -

Solution: We need a better monetary system...

That is, we need socialized central banks and heavily regulated financial sectors (anything that deals in compound interest). More government involvement.

The FED just increases the money supply and pumps it in the market... that is by definition inflation

No. Inflation is the reduced exchange value of units of money caused by an increase in the money supply greater than any increase in produced wealth. If the economy is producing ever more wealth, failure to increase the money supply in parallel would cause deflation - mild deflation is worse, from a wealth and investment producing viewpoint, than mild inflation. The Fed is supposed to prevent deflation, by carefully pumping money into any actually growing economy.

Healthcare

We have the FDA sitting on their asses - - Doctors are being sued for ridiculous things, - - - - Government talks big about breaking monopolies but doesn't do shit about the AMA - - - Our Medicare program-

Republican talking points. The biggest problem with health care is the expense of protecting the current levels of profit in the drug and insurance industry - how can you manage to list the problems of US health care and miss the biggest and most obvious one? The same one the Republican corporate propaganda always overlooks, by startling coincidence.

None of that is "conservative", of course - except maybe the call for socialized central banking - so your self description as a "conservative" is a bit odd.

But this isn't odd - it's comical:

All of them. I would transfer the 'designing, building, and maintaining of the 'country's nuclear weapons arsenal' to the Military.

I would also transfer the 'maritime nuclear reactors for the US Navy' to the US Navy.

'Overseeing nuclear waste handling'- I would totally get rid of it, and let the States deal with it

'Clean-up of radioactive and toxic contamination'- to the State.

Basic Research- This is an automatic cut.

So your solution to the problem of big government is to change the names and bureaucratic organizations of a bunch of agencies, and cut the smallest, lowest cost, and highest payoff feature unique to government - thereby losing the major positive contribution of government to the entire enterprise of nuclear engineering, with essentially no gain in efficiency or reduction in size.

What that sounds like is W&Co's approach to government. It didn't work very well.

 

[786]

Republican Party campaign slogan, parroted.

Its an observation. Obviously the anti-Democratic party will make similar observations. Two people calling someone wrong on the same thing doesn't make them the same thing.

Republican Party campaign rhetoric, parroted. The incentive for illegal immigration is a stick and carrot setup by US corporate power - NAFTA and "free trade" ruination of the local economies of Mexico, and the corporate demand for cheap and abused labor along the border and in the US. A million people a year don't wander into the US to have babies and get sick or injured here - that's a pretty silly idea, actually. Kind of embarrassing to get caught repeating it, one would think.

Frankly I've never heard of Republicans do anything about this, they rather build fences.

An incentive to come is different than an incentive to stay. And this still does not change the fact that they do burden the system

Republican political rhetoric. That's what NAFTA and the maquiladoras did - reduced government influence over corporate power across the Mexican border. With immediate consequences fairly describable as "disastrous".

NAFTA reduced government influence? Hmm......

Straight from the Reaganites, Republican Party mantra parroted.

Why not draw the parallel to Libertarians? Or that doesn't serve the purpose since I have to be a Republican for this post of yours to even be meaningful..

It's false, of course.

'Of course'- really..

Regulated banking, for example, is far less costly than unregulated banking. When the S&Ls were heavily regulated, they made goodly profits lending money at 5 and 6% - very low cost banking.

Why must they be regulated in the first place is because there is a bar station called the FED where they can get cheap alcohol to get drunk.

Regulated mining and fishing and logging and oil drilling is much cheaper, with much lower net costs, than unregulated mining and fishing and logging abnd oil drilling.

Evidence?

People are still, even after 2008, against "government regulation" of corporate power, because they have been ideologically swindled by the propaganda wing of those corporate powers - and swindled so flagrantly and so often over so many years now, by the same routine scam run by the same people, that they are apparently smply too embarrassed to admit what has happened.

Actually I feel everytime government tries to 'fix' something they screw up. Regulations are that screw up.

Unemployment would be meaningless without minimum wage laws. The Pharoah's Egypt and US slave plantations had full employment.

Slavery ended in the US. And you think people will work as slaves if there were no minimum wage laws?

Doctors don't get minimum wage. Actually most educated folk don't get minimum wage. I wonder why? According to your logic they would be getting the least amount of money possible? At least think before you speak.

That is, we need socialized central banks and heavily regulated financial sectors (anything that deals in compound interest). More government involvement.

The dollar has lost value even in those regulated times. The FED is a failure in all its duties.

No. Inflation is the reduced exchange value of units of money caused by an increase in the money supply greater than any increase in produced wealth. If the economy is producing ever more wealth, failure to increase the money supply in parallel would cause deflation - mild deflation is worse, from a wealth and investment producing viewpoint, than mild inflation. The Fed is supposed to prevent deflation, by carefully pumping money into any actually growing economy.

Read what you said and compare them to the facts.

You said- 'if the economy is producing....failure to increase money supply' - Is the economy producing more now is that why we need trillions of dollars to pump in the economy?

Is the reason people can't pay their mortgages because they are producing so much wealth that they can't seem to make payments?

And 'deflation'? Why prevent a correction of prices? You think price will keep deflating even if there is demand of it and there is a lot more money in the economy? I don't think you understand supply and demand.

Republican talking points. The biggest problem with health care is the expense of protecting the current levels of profit in the drug and insurance industry - how can you manage to list the problems of US health care and miss the biggest and most obvious one? The same one the Republican corporate propaganda always overlooks, by startling coincidence.

Hmm.... lets see Merck just went out of business in my state (Washington), they must be making so much profits...

About .01% of the drugs they investigate actually get to market. An average 12 years is required for drug to come to market. All this research takes hundreds of millions of dollar (imagine paying all the staff for 12 years)... The FDA takes forever....

Sure the drug companies charge huge premiums for their drugs. But if you have any business sense then you should get this: If you have a 99.99% chance of not get the drug to market because 99.99% of the drugs investigated aren't good enough. So all the research money is practically 'wasted' (can't make money off of a non-functional drug) and that you make money off of that .01% of drugs that do get approved AND you have 12 years to get it to market... How will this company run if it was keeping even a 100% or 200% margin?

The cost for the research of the approved drug is far surpassed by the cost of the research of the drugs that fail which you probably don't even count as 'cost'.

Maybe the government can become a Pharmaceutical company? Obviously they are stupid and will go in debt and more debt but will not pass on the cost of failure to you, but they will only charge you for the 'success'.

Can you please post the percentage profit insurance companies make?

None of that is "conservative", of course - except maybe the call for socialized central banking - so your self description as a "conservative" is a bit odd.

I never asked for socialized central banking... I would not not a central bank. Tying your currency to something is different than central banks who set interest rates...

It seems what you think of conservative is pretty much a liberal... First you say mine are 'Republican' points then you say they're not conservative either. So it seems either Republicans aren't conservative or you're confused.

But this isn't odd - it's comical: So your solution to the problem of big government is to change the names and bureaucratic organizations of a bunch of agencies, and cut the smallest, lowest cost, and highest payoff feature unique to government - thereby losing the major positive contribution of government to the entire enterprise of nuclear engineering, with essentially no gain in efficiency or reduction in size.

A smaller local government is more efficient. A state can better handle the problems of nuclear waste. Let me introduce the inefficiency. Washington State paying for the nuclear waste of Nevada. Instead of this nationwide tax use for specific states, it is much more economically efficient for the States to tax those industries (i.e nuclear) and use that money to solve waste problems associated with those industries (so the industries pay for the problems they create)... Washington State keeps more money because the FedGov is not taxing them for it. The State solves the problem. The whole economy of the nation is much better. FedGov introduces an inefficiency most of the time. It reduces government size, it emboldens the States to be more active, other States don't fit the bill and their economy is better off for it.

Peace be unto you

 

[iceaura]

Republican Party campaign slogan, parroted.
”
Its an observation.

It's a Republican Party campaign slogan, parroted from the Rep Party propaganda outlets and political rhetoric. It's based on no actual observation whatsoever.

Frankly I've never heard of Republicans do anything about this, they rather build fences.

Of course not. That's how they talk, not act. And it's how you talk, completely ignoring the central role of the cross-border industrialists and agribusiness interests - the same unreality and bs, in the same language.

NAFTA reduced government influence? Hmm......

Uh, yeah - it's purpose in life, if you recall.

Why must they be regulated in the first place is because there is a bar station called the FED where they can get cheap alcohol to get drunk.

Tell that to Hoover.

Goldman Sachs did not get drunk at the Fed.

Straight from the Reaganites, Republican Party mantra parroted.
”
Why not draw the parallel to Libertarians?- -

They got it from the Reaganites too - the few who weren't Reaganites themselves.

Regulated mining and fishing and logging and oil drilling is much cheaper, with much lower net costs, than unregulated mining and fishing and logging abnd oil drilling.
”
Evidence?

Been watching the news lately?

Actually I feel everytime government tries to 'fix' something they screw up.

Think more, feel less. Your intuition has been corrupted by repetitive falsehoods you have come to accept as "observation". Only reason can work you out.

And you think people will work as slaves if there were no minimum wage laws?

Yes. They do - you can observe the event. That's the corporate goal, and they are capable of gaining it.

The dollar has lost value even in those regulated times. The FED is a failure in all its duties.

The FED is an all but unregulated private bank. Congress is just now attempting to merely audit it, for the first time ever.

Can you please post the percentage profit insurance companies make?

You mean the corporate income they have arranged their books to pay taxes on? This one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnitedHealth_Group [/quote] declared almost 4 billion on equity of about 24 billion, or about 17%, in 2009. 2009 was not a high profit year for American business in general. That would not include its executive compensation and similar costs, of course. McGuire's parachute, over a billion, would not have counted as "profit", for example - although the executives run these businesses at least partly to generate that compensation.

A smaller local government is more efficient. A state can better handle the problems of nuclear waste.

In your goofy dreams can the state of Washington "handle" the Hanford waste, as it heads for the Columbia River and its fifteen minutes of Valdez fame.

I never asked for socialized central banking... I would not not a central bank. Tying your currency to something is different than central banks

Not really. Government runs the money supply, in any modern industrial system. If your government doesn't, your economy will be run on another government's money - big business can't deal with a bunch of banks all issuing their own currencies.

This is the problem with this Republican rhetoric, beyond denying its heritage in the Heritage Foundation and other sources of Republican tank thinking: Its lack of connection with reality means that when it gets power it hasn't a clue from its ideology on how to govern in fact.

example:

Hmm.... lets see Merck just went out of business in my state (Washington), they must be making so much profits...

A five second Google will tell you that Merck netted 13 billion in income on equity of 60 billion in 2009 - over 20% return on equity. Again, that's not including the executive compensation that is such a central factor in how and why these businesses are run.

 

[joepistole]

Apparently Mr. Paul thinks it is ok for private businesses to discriminate against people...for example the thinks it should be ok for businesses to not allow people entrance based on race. He thinks if we do not allow businesses to discriminate based on race or other forms of discrimination, we cannot forbid people from carrying guns on a premise.

What is really odd about his position is that today, law forbids private businesses discriminating against people based on certian things like race. And today, businesses can and do forbid people from brining fire arms onto a premise. So his excuse for discrimination is really with out merrit.

 

[Cowboy]

Apparently Mr. Paul thinks it is ok for private businesses to discriminate against people...for example the thinks it should be ok for businesses to not allow people entrance based on race. He thinks if we do not allow businesses to discriminate based on race or other forms of discrimination, we cannot forbid people from carrying guns on a premise.

What is really odd about his position is that today, law forbids private businesses discriminating against people based on certian things like race. And today, businesses can and do forbid people from brining fire arms onto a premise. So his excuse for discrimination is really with out merrit.

My understanding of his position is that the government shouldn't be allowed to control who businesses hire and serve. Not that he is in favor of discrimination, but only the right of businesses to discriminate (and they already do discriminate with affirmative action). I see no problem with this.

Not sure about his alleged view on how this relates to carrying guns, though.

 

[786]

It's a Republican Party campaign slogan, parroted from the Rep Party propaganda outlets and political rhetoric. It's based on no actual observation whatsoever.

It is an observation. Democrats are always proposing 'plans' for things...

Money for Job Creation.
Money for Healthcare
Money for Research
Money for .....

Its an observation as far as I can tell.

Of course not. That's how they talk, not act. And it's how you talk, completely ignoring the central role of the cross-border industrialists and agribusiness interests - the same unreality and bs, in the same language.

So protecting the border is also corporate favoritism? I don't agree with the fence by the way.

Goldman Sachs did not get drunk at the Fed.

Well if you run the fed you must be sane, because only then can you scam people right? GS is doing just that.

Been watching the news lately?

No... I don't trust any of the news networks really. And I have no time from my studies to begin with.

But I don't think they are talking about efficiencies on news are they?

Think more, feel less. Your intuition has been corrupted by repetitive falsehoods you have come to accept as "observation". Only reason can work you out.

Well SS was a fix and its not working. Creating a central bank was a fix and its not working... I think I observed this. I hate Fox by the way, I hope you aren't implying that I'm being newsfed by them.

Yes. They do - you can observe the event. That's the corporate goal, and they are capable of gaining it.

So you ignored it... Why don't you tell us why doctors and so many others aren't being paid the minimum wage but an extravagant amount? You know this rips up your whole bs argument of working for nothing slavery scare tactic.

The FED is an all but unregulated private bank. Congress is just now attempting to merely audit it, for the first time ever.
You mean the corporate income they have arranged their books to pay taxes on? This one, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnitedHealth_Group

declared almost 4 billion on equity of about 24 billion, or about 17%, in 2009. 2009 was not a high profit year for American business in general. That would not include its executive compensation and similar costs, of course. McGuire's parachute, over a billion, would not have counted as "profit", for example - although the executives run these businesses at least partly to generate that compensation.[/Quote]

Interesting.. So you derive profit margin of service from equity? Normal people find profit margins by profits from revenue. So did the higher 17% compared to less than 5% seem more attracted way to post?

Can you please post the complex accounting you did to find the profit margin of their product?

Although I'm no fan of executives, even if you add $100 million or even a $1 billion dollars in executive pays that still is less than 6% at the max. This is amazingly high profit margin. Government should outlaw Starbucks.

In your goofy dreams can the state of Washington "handle" the Hanford waste, as it heads for the Columbia River and its fifteen minutes of Valdez fame.

Then you have many states acting together. Each can play its role... this is actually a great example where FedGov will be an even bigger burden because they usually pass 1-law fits all type things which ends up hurting the States.

Not really. Government runs the money supply, in any modern industrial system. If your government doesn't, your economy will be run on another government's money - big business can't deal with a bunch of banks all issuing their own currencies.

That is why the 'modern industrial system' is collapsing. A physical set backing is not a 'currency' essentially its an asset. Banks don't 'issue their own currency'.. The Government does. No one has the printing press.

A five second Google will tell you that Merck netted 13 billion in income on equity of 60 billion in 2009 - over 20% return on equity. Again, that's not including the executive compensation that is such a central factor in how and why these businesses are run.

I would like your help in accounting.. Please show us how you determine profit margin of product and the complex accounting procedure you used. Because the contention is that Healthcare companies charge a lot for their insurance, so its the cost of 'insurance' (i.e service) and the margin associated with this that is at contention here...

So I'm hoping you're using the right numbers in the equation. Or do you change the equation so that instead of checking the profit margin on insurance you are actually measuring company growth instead? This would be quite hypocritical

Peace be unto you

 

[joepistole]

My understanding of his position is that the government shouldn't be allowed to control who businesses hire and serve. Not that he is in favor of discrimination, but only the right of businesses to discriminate (and they already do discriminate with affirmative action). I see no problem with this.

Not sure about his alleged view on how this relates to carrying guns, though.

You hit it on the head. He favors a return to the days when businesses can refuse to server people based on the color of their skin. However, he did not say that he favored discrimination. But he does want to allow others the rigiht to do so.

I heard him last evening use the gun arguement to justify his position. There is just one small thing wrong with his arguement, what he wants to aviod already exists. People do not have the right to carry weapons on private property. And people/businesses cannot discriminate against people based on skin color. So Paul's rationalization of his position on civil rights is just plain silly.

 

[Ganymede]

At last, we finally have a 911 truther in the Senate.

 

[Anarcho Union]

I disagree with the Tea Party. BUT AT LEAST THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING! You dont have a right to down them if all you do is vote and bitch on sciforums. Their out there trying to change things and their getting of their asses.

 

[joepistole]

I disagree with the Tea Party. BUT AT LEAST THEY ARE DOING SOMETHING! You dont have a right to down them if all you do is vote and bitch on sciforums. Their out there trying to change things and their getting of their asses.

Have you ever been lost in a forrest? Sometimes the best thing to do is to stay put and have a little patience.

The Tea Party approach to business and government is to play Russian Roullette with the health and economy of the nation...not a good idea. I suppose the French after the French Revolution would disagree with you.

There is never a time when irrational behavior is good for a nation.