• Ron Paul: The TEA Party is taking you for a ride.
    154 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32139158]1. In general I mean, he uses reason when analyzing problems and deciding what to do, some of his solutions are a bit extreme, but they are not "LOL GOD SAID SO." 2. I could use that exact statement in return, you have no proof giving education to the states would be detrimental.[/QUOTE] 1. Okay, that only makes him a step up from the other GOP candidates, and even if he uses more logic than his colleagues to reach his conclusions, that hardly makes the idea much better. 2. Your proof that it wouldn't be so bad to leave it up to the states was "literacy rates weren't terrible". If that was the first thing you went off of, I'm willing to bet your secondary reasons weren't much better. And I do have a reason why unregulated education would be bad, I listed them earlier: certain areas can push a biased curriculum, more class division when schools become privatized, etc.
We should wait until the economy is in good enough condition to handle it though.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32139213]Actually he wants to cut costs to get rid of our insane debt we owe, that makes sense.[/QUOTE] You cannot cut your way out of a recession. What's the point of getting your debt down when it means the poor go without necessary services?
Austerity measures in England and France have already stalled growth and prompted fears of a second recession. Imagine if the biggest economy in the world cut enough spending to send itself back into recession!
If we could just halve our military budget, we would be so fucking rich.
[QUOTE=GunFox;32139299]If we could just halve our military budget, we would be so fucking rich.[/QUOTE] That is a good long-term goal to have, but most major cuts should wait until real growth starts up again.
Can we just for once get a good Independent candidate in office? One that isn't part of the bipartisan bullshit, and does stuff that is truly good for the people. Please?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32139238]1. Okay, that only makes him a step up from the other GOP candidates, and even if he uses more logic than his colleagues to reach his conclusions, that hardly makes the idea much better. 2. Your proof that it wouldn't be so bad to leave it up to the states was "literacy rates weren't terrible". If that was the first thing you went off of, I'm willing to bet your secondary reasons weren't much better. And I do have a reason why unregulated education would be bad, I listed them earlier: certain areas can push a biased curriculum, more class division when schools become privatized, etc.[/QUOTE] 1. It makes him better than 90% of candidates, not even Obama is straightfoward when talking about shit. 2. You asked why, and I asked "why not?" give me some valid, non-conjecture evidence on why it'd be so terrible to let states and private entities control schooling.
Texas would try teaching creationism in a heartbeat.
[QUOTE=person11;32139378]Texas would try teaching creationism in a heartbeat.[/QUOTE] Except it'd be ruled unconstitutional.... you know state governments have to abide by that document too?
I said "try".
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32139248]You cannot cut your way out of a recession. What's the point of getting your debt down when it means the poor go without necessary services?[/QUOTE] It's not about cutting out of a recession it's about not owing a debt. We took on the debt, and now we have to pay it, you can't just keep borrowing.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32139337]1. It makes him better than 90% of candidates, not even Obama is straightfoward when talking about shit.[/quote] Doesn't matter how straightforward you present awful ideas. [QUOTE=Jawalt;32139337]2. You asked why, and I asked "why not?" give me some valid, non-conjecture evidence on why it'd be so terrible to let states and private entities control schooling.[/QUOTE] Well for one thing, look at what happened when we started privatizing the prison system (prison obviously not the exact same as school, but it's the same idea of federal institutions becoming privatized), it starting becoming about how many prisoners you could jam in a building for the most petty offenses, in order to make profit. The amount of schooling that is currently focused on learning and not funding is already disgustingly low, it doesn't need to get any worse. Privatization is going to turn education into even more a for-profit market than it already is.
[QUOTE=person11;32139405]I said "try".[/QUOTE] Then does it matter?
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32139409]It's not about cutting out of a recession it's about not owing a debt. We took on the debt, and now we have to pay it, you can't just keep borrowing.[/QUOTE] And even if we cut enough to get our deficit all the way down, then what? Just save up surplus money until you try to spend it on not big enough programs to put us in another recession? That plan takes us nowhere.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32139412]Doesn't matter how straightforward you present awful ideas. Well for one thing, look at what happened when we started privatizing the prison system (prison obviously not the exact same as school, but it's the same idea of federal institutions becoming privatized), it starting becoming about how many prisoners you could jam in a building for the most petty offenses, in order to make profit. The amount of schooling that is currently focused on learning and not funding is already disgustingly low, it doesn't need to get any worse. Privatization is going to turn education into even more a for-profit market than it already is.[/QUOTE] It's not about privatizing school, it's about not having it be a responsibility of the federal government.
The point I was getting at is that certain States are capable of fucking their own people over unless the Federal government is there to stop the worst of the offences. Let me once again use abortion as an example: Republican led State-level Congresses have been passing bills attempting to limit abortion in any way that is legal. Imagine if they had more freedom to decide these things? It would be a disaster.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32139430]And even if we cut enough to get our deficit all the way down, then what? Just save up surplus money until you try to spend it on not big enough programs to put us in another recession? That plan takes us nowhere.[/QUOTE] Really? When you owe a debt you pay it, it's not about anything else. If you had credit card debt would you not pay it because it 'gets you no where'?
[QUOTE=person11;32139319]That is a good long-term goal to have, but most major cuts should wait until real growth starts up again.[/QUOTE] Why bother? Halve the military budget, start paying off the debt in large amounts. Pour money into public programs. Paying off debt AND funding social programs are excellent indicators of a nation doing well. That is all we need. The APPEARANCE of doing well to actually DO well.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32139416]Then does it matter?[/QUOTE] The mere fact an elected official anywhere would feel emboldened to try would be scary in itself.
[QUOTE=person11;32139438]The point I was getting at is that certain States are capable of fucking their own people over unless the Federal government is there to stop the worst of the offences. Let me once again use abortion as an example: Republican led State-level Congresses have been passing bills attempting to limit abortion in any way that is legal. Imagine if they had more freedom to decide these things? It would be a disaster.[/QUOTE] Except that the supreme court has ruled on this exact issue, and decided in abortion's favor. [editline]5th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=person11;32139461]The mere fact an elected official anywhere would feel emboldened to try would be scary in itself.[/QUOTE]Lol.
[QUOTE=GunFox;32139459]Why bother? Halve the military budget, start paying off the debt in large amounts. Pour money into public programs. Paying off debt AND funding social programs are excellent indicators of a nation doing well. That is all we need. The APPEARANCE of doing well to actually DO well.[/QUOTE] That is true, we could put more money into social programs while paying off our debts. Too bad attempting to cut our military budget would be a political nightmare. [editline]5th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Jawalt;32139463]Except that the supreme court has ruled on this exact issue, and decided in abortion's favor. [editline]5th September 2011[/editline] Lol.[/QUOTE] Roe vs Wade does not seem to be helping the girls who are resorting to backroom abortions. And Ron Paul does want to end Roe vs Wade.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32139432]It's not about privatizing school, it's about not having it be a responsibility of the federal government.[/QUOTE] And you think states like Texas or Alabama aren't going to privatize their schools if given the chance? Hell, Texas elected Rick Perry more than once, I put nothing past their government. Also, if you're just arguing for it being a state responsibility rather than a federal one, what is the point of that? Schools already have local administrators to make school-specific decisions, all the federal government does is give them funding, make sure they aren't teaching lies, and make sure there's no lead in the water. Giving that to the states for the arbitrary reason of "state's rights" with no further elaboration is just stupid. [editline]5th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Jawalt;32139463]Except that the supreme court has ruled on this exact issue, and decided in abortion's favor.[/QUOTE] So what these states did instead was make the clinics that provide abortion more scarce. Arguably just as bad.
[QUOTE=person11;32139484]That is true, we could put more money into social programs while paying off our debts. Too bad attempting to cut our military budget would be a political nightmare. [/QUOTE] Yeah it really would be. Tis but a dream.
[QUOTE=thisispain;32054775]irrelevant, things in mainstream society has changed, it will be changed again[/QUOTE] Yes, because you can achieve societal change through coercion. And it's impossible that such coercion can or would be used either way.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32139531]And you think states like Texas or Alabama aren't going to privatize their schools if given the chance? Hell, Texas elected Rick Perry more than once, I put nothing past their government. Also, if you're just arguing for it being a state responsibility rather than a federal one, what is the point of that? Schools already have local administrators to make school-specific decisions, all the federal government does is give them funding, make sure they aren't teaching lies, and make sure there's no lead in the water. Giving that to the states for the arbitrary reason of "state's rights" with no further elaboration is just stupid. [editline]5th September 2011[/editline] So what these states did instead was make the clinics that provide abortion more scarce. Arguably just as bad.[/QUOTE] Why is it stupid? Because you think it is? "States rights are stupid omg lol." okay. [editline]5th September 2011[/editline] Also, I've explained why, please read my post.
double post -snip-
[QUOTE=Derubermensch;32139604]Full of wrong. He wouldn't ban any of those things through the rule of law, he personally does condemn those things however. Learn what a Libertarian is. [editline]5th September 2011[/editline] Also full of wrong, Hoover increased spending during the crash. Fuckin automerge.[/QUOTE] I'll go slap my history teacher now.
[QUOTE=Jawalt;32139581]Why is it stupid? Because you think it is? "States rights are stupid omg lol." okay.[/QUOTE] I just explained why. Did you even read what I wrote?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32139751]I just explained why. Did you even read what I wrote?[/QUOTE]It's just a difference in ideals, healthcare and education being the responsibility of society or government, there is no clear right or wrong, it's a belief.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.