I've formed an opinion of Ron Paul: He's a dick.

[The Jackamo]

Kind of late to this game, and haven't really read through it all, but I have some thoughts:

Social security was meant to be a short term solution as a greater part of the New Deal. It has transformed itself into a long term crutch for which we have no plan looking into the future. The Boomers number around 80 million people (about 26% of the population) – that number will vary depending on where you look, but 80m is a good average. These people are now nearing the age of retirement – my father, who was born in 46, the year that the boom started, will be up for SS and all that next year. Sustaining 80 million people for 30-40 years will be a strain on our economy and our government that we will be lucky to live through.

Social security is not a fund. I seem to recall that for a while, all SS taxes were cordoned off (one way or another) and kept separate from government revenue and expenditures. That didn't last long though, and it was absorbed into the government budget. Short term thinking for a long term solution.

Where's this leave us? Well, economically, I'd say we're screwed. Our current projected future obligations (of which SS is a part of) are around $53 TRILLION. (For some brief perspective – 1 million seconds = 11.6 days ;; 1 billion seconds = 31.7 years ;; 1 trillion seconds = 31,709.8 years...the number is huge.) David Walker, the current Comptroller of the US has said that our current fiscal path is unsustainable and that we face tough choices if we wish to MAINTAIN in the future. Not even to be prosperous, but to merely maintain our current situation. A bleak outlook for SS and other socialized programs. Like it or not, they may end up getting the axe if we can't get things under control quickly.

But as for Ron Paul: he has unorthodox, crazy ideas – yes. He seems like a cold hearted bastard for not accepting Medicare or Medicaid – yes. But is he really an asshole, or is he simply being realistic? I'd say he's thinking realistically. He realizes that our social well being and the state of our economy are inextricably linked. Greenspan, upon exiting as chairman of the Fed, said that the greatest thing that this country would face in the coming years would be the mounting credit debt, and, by extension, the mounting national debt. This is tied directly with these social programs – if we as a country aren't prosperous, everybody, Social Security or not, is screwed. But I suppose it's a chicken and the egg problem – did the fiscal problems come first, or do the social programs cause the fiscal problems? I'll admit, it's a multi-faceted problem that has and will continue to perplex economists and social analysts for some time.

Short answer? Cut the fat and start over. Admit that the system is ungainly and cannot stand the weight of its own commitments. Can it be considered a cold-hearted view of things? Definitely. But is it also a realistic outlook on a bleak situation? Definitely. Cutting unneeded programs out all at once will cause an uproar and downturn in the sort run, but in the long run will it help? No one can say for sure, but I think in the long term, we'll be OK.

I think we're at a point in time where we need to question the role of government and what kinds of decisions it can make on our behalf. That goes for everything. The founders wanted a country were the people were the deciders and where free markets reigned with as little intervention from the government as possible. Many of the people here are saying that the termination of Social Security would spell doom for all senior citizens, that old people would be walking the streets, panic would ensue, armageddon would rain down on us. But realistically, would this be the case? Maybe in some extreme cases, people would be worse off, but 99% of those would not be receiving their promised benefits would probably be able to find alternatives that are just as good. And what's to say that new types of aid wouldn't pop up? The market would react accordingly were it to see an imbalance, that's the beauty of our system. Is it perfect? Not at all, and people will be left out. Hell, I might be one of them. But has it allowed this country to prosper for the past 200+ years? Yes. It made this country the greatest in the world economically (from which we will probably be falling in the coming years, but I'm sure it won't be horrible).

"As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is, to use it as sparingly as possible; avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts, which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen, which we ourselves ought to bear." –Washington

(sorry this turned out so long, i ended up just speaking my mind. thanks to anyone who made it to the end!)

[stuckathuntermtn]

We are not solitary creatues by nature. Humans are creatures that thrive in groups.

Holy shit, someone finally gets what it's all about. "No Man is an Island."
If you want to let people become poor and destitute because "it's their fault, and not my responsibility," then don't be surprised when they rob you so they can feed themselves.

[MeatPuppet]

don't tease me, man. tell me how private property promotes the general welfare. i can never hear it enough.

Hey, dumbfuck, individuals owning private property promotes the general welfare by giving the individual a reason to care what happens to the country. It makes the governing of the country something personal rather than an abstract idea.

Same as giving stock options to employees.

You are such a shitstain. If you ask me nicely, I'll tell you what I really think about you.

[Cliff Huckable]

It continues to amaze me that people who seem intelligent don't understand the concept that it is not the responsibility of the Federal Government to take care of you.

I feel for your mother 4matic, but meatpuppet nailed it right on the head. You expect the government (all taxpayers) to help care for your mother. Historically this would have been your responsibility. where did this sense of entitlement come from?

You ARE the government, so I don't see how "entitlement" comes into play.

[You Are Gay]

I've noticed that a lot of people posting in this thread (incluing, of course, Cliff) are really really gay. Stop being so gay, you gays. Seriously - stop being gay.

[spook]

Hey, dumbfuck, individuals owning private property promotes the general welfare by giving the individual a reason to care what happens to the country. It makes the governing of the country something personal rather than an abstract idea.

Same as giving stock options to employees.

You are such a shitstain. If you ask me nicely, I'll tell you what I really think about you.

let me know if any of your brain cells venture out of their cage on their own, meat. i'll show you around. we can do a trip report. we can call it "Meatpuppet stops being spoonfed bullshit." Of course, I'll just be spoonfeeding you, too, but some folks need a little help getting started.

in the meantime...

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEE!!!

PREDATORY CAPITALISM!!!!

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!

[house]

hey spook, i may just be drunk/hungover now, but i think youre wrong.

you think the gov't is doing a really good job of protecting you from "predatory capitalism" now? better move somewhere else. capitalism is predatory by nature. quit being a weenie

[spook]

hey spook, i may just be drunk/hungover now, but i think youre wrong.

you think the gov't is doing a really good job of protecting you from "predatory capitalism" now? better move somewhere else. capitalism is predatory by nature. quit being a weenie

you are drunk/hungover. i never said anything of the sort.

i will give you partial credit for acknowledging that capitalism is predatory by nature. if you can show why that has to fail (and has been failing forever) as a foundation for a society, i'll give you a gold star and let you give meatpuppet noogies.

the "weenies" are the "patriots" who prefer cognitive dissonance to the obvious.


WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!

WE'RE THE BEST!!!!

WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

[house]

ok. not gonna worry about this yet. my state's primary isn't for a while now.

and the fucking seahawks can't score on carolina. going to go turn this hangover into a legit drunk. YAY!!!!

edit: and why the hell am i trying to sway somebody's opinion on a message board? that's as effective as beating off with your off hand. shit where's my beer

[Spats]

but leaving everything i know about statistics and empiricism aside and trying to compare the violent crime rate of detroit to london - detroit´s is 3 to 4 times higher than londons. also the overall crime rate seems 3 to 4 times higher although uk´s statistics take fraud and forgery into account which us´ seems not to.

How and where are you getting your numbers? Mine are official British Home Office and FBI statistics, from their official sites respectively. Using those numbers, London's violent crime rate is nearly twice as high (44.1/1000 vs. 24.17/1000). And no, I didn't count forgery or fraud, just violent crime. (See below for details.)

As far as City of London not being representative, inner city Detroit is not representative of the United States either, which was my point However:

I ran the numbers for both countries as a whole:
England/Wales total violent crime: 12.4 per 1000
United States total violent crime: 4.7 per 1000
How about that!

Clearly an Orwellian profusion of GATSOs, surveillance cameras, and anti-gun laws, plus a substantial social safety net of socialized medicine and the dole, has failed to make Britain safer than the US...on the contrary, the opposite appears to be true.

My point stands: even if you value safety over freedom, Britain has nothing to say to the United States about how a country should be run.

::::::::::::::::::

For those who are interested in details, here are my sources and methods. Note that I am using official government sites, and I do my own research.

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/to...3=0&sub=0&v=36
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html

Here's how I calculated: The British crime site doesn't have a single heading for "violent crime", and they list crimes quarterly, not yearly, so to get a single total comparable to the US figure, I actually had to make a small spreadsheet.

Violent crimes fall under two headings: "Violence against the person" and "Sexual offences". "Violence against the person" in Britain includes several headings that don't compare to "aggravated assault" in the US: "common assault", "harassment", and "possession of weapons", so I subtracted those from the total. (I double-checked by adding the remaining headings, which correspond as closely as possible to the US definition of "aggravated assault": "Serious violence", "Less serious wounding", "Assault on constable", and "Threat or conspiracy to murder", and obtained the same result.) Then I added "Sexual offences", which includes rape and sexual assault, to obtain a total violent crime figure.

[Spats]

Jackamo: I read your post. You touched on a very important point, which I'd like to expand on.

We like to think of government in purely moral terms: what should the government do for us? However, our morality is constrained by economics: what can the government do for us, or stated more clearly, what can we afford to pay for government to do for us?

Our idea of what government can do for us versus what it costs is terribly distorted by the fact that throughout our entire lifetimes, the US government has been steadily accumulating unfathomable amounts of debt, measured in TRILLIONS of dollars, a number too big for any of us to actually comprehend. Basically, we have been getting a lot more government than we have paid for, and charged the rest on our national credit card.

This has given everybody the idea that we can occupy and maintain military bases in over 120 countries around the world, fight overseas wars, pay medical expenses for every retired person, pay living expenses for every retired person, build and maintain all our roads and bridges, subsidize oil refining and corn and soybean farming, maybe even have a national health care system, just for starters -- and somehow not collapse the economy by monetizing (printing money) into hyperinflation or defaulting on our debt.

No, we can't.

This is why some people don't like Ron Paul: he reminds us that we have been living far beyond our means, and that because we have gone so far into debt, we have to be more realistic about what government can do for us. Just like a family that has been living off credit cards and a HELOC but has maxed them out, this involves making some very hard choices.

Ron Paul's choice is to dramatically shrink the military-industrial complex in order to pay the obligations we have to people who currently depend on government handouts such as Social Security and Medicare, while allowing the young (95% of people reading this will never see a dime from Social Security no matter how much we put in) to opt out of a collapsing system and take charge of their own future.

No other candidate is talking about this. No other candidate is willing to make any of these hard choices. The result will be the destruction of the world economy, because Europe has even worse demographic problems than we do, and Asia's economy is dependent on exporting to the US and Europe.

That's the choice. Ron Paul or massive worldwide depression. Take your pick.

[You Are Gay]

we can do a trip report.

That'd be rich - a TR from a guy who never once has even uttered the word "ski" let alone actually posted anything even remotely ski-related.

You're so gay it's absurd. And that's actually pretty funny. So thanks for entertaining us with your colossal gayness, I suppose...


homo

[The Jackamo]

Spats: hit the nail on the head.

[spook]

That'd be rich - a TR from a guy who never once has even uttered the word "ski" let alone actually posted anything even remotely ski-related.

You're so gay it's absurd. And that's actually pretty funny. So thanks for entertaining us with your colossal gayness, I suppose...


homo

i'm glad you can feel my vibe. unfortunately, you're mistaken. i've posted at least a handful of things directly related to skiing, even though i board. try the search function, nimrod.

in the meantime,


I'M ON UR BOARD, POACHIN' UR STOAK

[greg]

what exactly is your point spats? except for trying to make other people shut up with your flawed numbers? i told you they were flawed at just about any level. and to point it out to you i addressed just the most obvious flaw: comparing per capita crime of downtown london with 8500 inhabitants and millions of daily trespasser to those of the whole city of detroit. thanks for pointing that out to me as i stated i was aware of that flaw.

so lets come back to the typical nra arguement - violent crime is higher in the uk than it is in the us. they usually use it to prove that more arms lead to less violent crime. do you also know since when they use it? it dates back to the time around the year 2000 when the uk changed their system of how to account crimes. at that point in time violent crime has trippeled. do you think that happened because the british people became three times more violent from one day to the other?

as you see - you can´t even compare the uk stats with uk stats - but you are actually comparing them applying some 2nd grade math to the us stats.

so to point out one major difference between the uk stats and those of the us:

in the us only reported and recorded crimes are taken into account.

in the uk in addition to those they account crimes based on surveys and then extrapolate those numbers and ad them to the stats. that means that all those little incidents like bar fights with miniscule injuries and verbal harrassments of the everyday life or all the violence occuring within a family that never got reported or even recorded appear in those stats.

if you want to do a comparison that is a bit more accurate, you should resort to severe crimes which on occurence definitely get recorded and reported in both countries - like homicide.

i´m not saying violent crime is less in the uk than in the us. i don´t know - and i don´t even care. i just get pissed at the fact that you are trying to shut up other people not only based on their origin but furthermore resorting to that fucked up nra logic. both points - the origin of your opponent as well as your crime in the uk argument are dumb as hell and weaken you as a legitimate disputant. it both has nothing to do with whether or not ron paul has a valid program. - wich since you are a supporter should be the topic of your debate. so you might want to stick to that. otherwise i´ll tell you that you are gay - and we conclude the debate.

[Jer]

Ron Paul or massive worldwide depression. Take your pick.

It doesn't matter to me - the end result of either choice is the same. Shoot, if Ron Paul was allowed to implement some of his more harebrained ideas, worldwide depression would probably follow soon enough.

Either way, we "cut the fat". (Lovely phrase, hope you like it so well when it gets applied to you.)
The less-fortunate will starve on the streets. The more fortunate will survive, albeit in a grimier, grimmer world. For a while, anyway. Hungry mobs can be awfully cruel.

I wonder how many of you folks who like to think of yourself as independently secure islands would end up on the sharp end of the fat-cutting knife?

I'm tempted to wish you on yourselves ... but no, I'm too nice.

[spook]

speaking of trimming the fat....lots of good recipes here...

http://dieoff.org/

[PNWbrit]

Spats.

Exactly how many generations here would I have needed to have as valid a view point as yours?

Because according to the "bloated" federal government it doesn't matter. Just a 4th grade level, multiple choice civics exam and a parroted oath actually allows someone's view to count just as much as yours. Probably another reason your boy Ron should abolish government. . Market forces driven immigration service or would charities fulfill that role?

Bill of Rights? The one that Britain does actually have is considerably older than yours... don't want to get into a compare and contrast with you even if there was a point in doing so, merely shooting down your mistaken sweeping comments (again).

[Cliff Huckable]

I've noticed that a lot of people posting in this thread (incluing, of course, Cliff) are really really gay. Stop being so gay, you gays. Seriously - stop being gay.

YOUR WORDS HAVE POWER

USE THEM WITH CARE

.
.
.
.

[You Are Gay]

speaking of trimming the fat....lots of good recipes here...

http://dieoff.org/

speaking of homos....lots of flaming faggots here...

http://http://www.tetongravity.com/f...=105349&page=6

[timnormandin]

Spats.

Exactly how many generations here would I have needed to have as valid a view point as yours?

Because according to the "bloated" federal government it doesn't matter. Just a 4th grade level, multiple choice civics exam and a parroted oath actually allows someone's view to count just as much as yours. Probably another reason your boy Ron should abolish government. . Market forces driven immigration service or would charities fulfill that role?

Bill of Rights? The one that Britain does actually have is considerably older than yours... don't want to get into a compare and contrast with you even if there was a point in doing so, merely shooting down your mistaken sweeping comments (again).

The Magna Carta! You're fucking shitting me! A Bill of Rights for inbred English nobles. I admit, you fuckers can fight and climb , and--thanks to foreign players--your football is the world's best. But your government sucks troll dick, and you all--to a man--ski like shit. Plus you can't cook.













And you're gay.

[uncle crud]

Hey, dumbfuck, individuals owning private property promotes the general welfare by giving the individual a reason to care what happens to the country. It makes the governing of the country something personal rather than an abstract idea.

Same as giving stock options to employees.

You are such a shitstain. If you ask me nicely, I'll tell you what I really think about you.

Your answer isn't providing proof. It is providing an argument. The two are radically different. Arguments NEED proof to be valid. Your argument is INvalid because it lacks proof.

And thus it is nothing more than your lame opinion.

[uncle crud]

Ron Paul has been an inside internet joke since day one.

Don't blow it now, the n00bs are still biting!

Painful truth.

Especially for those Jonestown members who drank Paul's Flavor-Aid.

[Cliff Huckable]

How and where are you getting your numbers? Mine are official British Home Office and FBI statistics, from their official sites respectively. Using those numbers, London's violent crime rate is nearly twice as high (44.1/1000 vs. 24.17/1000). And no, I didn't count forgery or fraud, just violent crime. (See below for details.)

As far as City of London not being representative, inner city Detroit is not representative of the United States either, which was my point However:

I ran the numbers for both countries as a whole:
England/Wales total violent crime: 12.4 per 1000
United States total violent crime: 4.7 per 1000
How about that!

Clearly an Orwellian profusion of GATSOs, surveillance cameras, and anti-gun laws, plus a substantial social safety net of socialized medicine and the dole, has failed to make Britain safer than the US...on the contrary, the opposite appears to be true.

My point stands: even if you value safety over freedom, Britain has nothing to say to the United States about how a country should be run.

::::::::::::::::::

For those who are interested in details, here are my sources and methods. Note that I am using official government sites, and I do my own research.

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/to...3=0&sub=0&v=36
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html

Here's how I calculated: The British crime site doesn't have a single heading for "violent crime", and they list crimes quarterly, not yearly, so to get a single total comparable to the US figure, I actually had to make a small spreadsheet.

Violent crimes fall under two headings: "Violence against the person" and "Sexual offences". "Violence against the person" in Britain includes several headings that don't compare to "aggravated assault" in the US: "common assault", "harassment", and "possession of weapons", so I subtracted those from the total. (I double-checked by adding the remaining headings, which correspond as closely as possible to the US definition of "aggravated assault": "Serious violence", "Less serious wounding", "Assault on constable", and "Threat or conspiracy to murder", and obtained the same result.) Then I added "Sexual offences", which includes rape and sexual assault, to obtain a total violent crime figure.

I kind of wanted to avoid getting involved in this but...wtf?

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to suggest that Britain is more violent than the US?!!

If that's what you're getting from statistics, then there is something wrong with your stats or your analysis.

FACT: The US is by far the developed/1st world/modern/Western country with the most violent crime. It's not even close.

If you really want to know about it, go live somewhere in Britain for a few months. Or live in any other European country. You'll be shocked at how free you can feel.

[PNWbrit]

The Magna Carta!

Nope this one

Like I said, it's not a contest, just pointing out shpats mishtake.