obama

[bright lights, big city]

so what would he be doing right now instead of a bailout. what are the other options?

[Variable]

In short.  He would not do anything for these companies.  He acknowledges that for a year or two.  Things would get REALLY tough for some people.  But argues that it will happen either now, or later anyways.  And that it will just be worse later if we wait. 

He would instead fix the monitory system.  Get rid of the Federal Reserve.  Put us back on the gold standard.  Stop inflation.  And quickly reduce the spending of the federal government in order to pay off the national debt.  The first step he would take to do that is to bring back ALL of the US military from over seas ( not just Iraq and Afghanistan ) He would also get rid of useless government organizations.  He would also get out of the WTO and NAFTA and set up true free trade in America.  He would take off embargos from countries like cuba ( so for example we could buy their cheap sugar ) .......He has a lot to say man.  A LOT to say.  A very clear plan that he laid out in a book.  I can't explain the whole thing you know.  But if you want specific answers, instead of vague ass "just trust me, ill fix it" answers like Obama and McCain say.  Read his book.  One of the cool thought about Dr. Paul is that he predicted all of this before it happened.  So he already wrote about it, before it happened.  So now you can go ahead and read about it.

This first video is a great starter for Ron Paul.  Especially if you arent that into politics and dont like to get too technical.  Sorry I dont know how to post it as a video

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/88505/june-13-2007/ron-paul

[youtube=425,350]M806u1brf2I[/youtube]

[youtube=425,350]1sfUKZOHtRs[/youtube]

[youtube=425,350]sSNnembIJ_c[/youtube]

[youtube=425,350]trAiCwzSVho[/youtube]

[youtube=425,350]dv6rQ0U01Yc[/youtube]

[Variable]

The only thing I worry about with him is his stand on a national healthcare system...does anyone have any info on his standing with this?  I know he is against any government intervention, however I feel that healthcare is a right and therefore deserves to be treated as such by our government.

ok.  I wasn't able to find the text online.  I would have just copied it from my book.  But I gave it away.  The only store that sells the book where I am is a 1 hour drive each way.  So, I downloaded the audio book from i-tunes.  I found the part about health care.  But now I have to go study for a test I have tomorrow.  Tomorrow, after the test, I will come back and type it up.

But in MY opinion-words ( not Dr. Pauls ) I don't necessarily think that healthcare is a right.  It's definitely not defined in the bill of rights.  And if you are going to say that health care is a right.  You are going to have to define exactly how much.  What is the standard of care?  You do realize that not all treatments are equal.  Not in cost or effect.  So, think about it.  In a system where we ( the patients ) do not pay for the care.  But the bureaucrats in Washington do.  What do you think they will decide to do?  I'm going to go ahead and guess that they will throw the lowest standard of care at you for the cheapest amount of money.  Meaning the absolute minimum care you can provide without being accused of malpractice.  Oh yeah, that sounds GREAT!

In a government controlled health care system.  The doctors are not free to treat the patients as they see fit.  They are at the mercy of the red tape laid out by the bureaucrats.(that scares me, I wonder who knows best?)  They have to take orders from Washington based on how to save the most money.  Seeing as how the government also regulates their licensees.  I wouldn't be expecting too many doctors to be taking a moral stand and just hook you up with that prescription that you don't NEED but would make your life more comfortable.  They probably wont go above and beyond to just go ahead and make sure that you aren't in the 5% of people who present differently with a certain lethal condition.  The government is most certain to punish them less if you die, but they save money, compared to if you live but they spend more money.  Think about it.

Pretty much.  Calling health care a right is simplistic and idealistic.  I could stand at the door of a urgent care and give everyone who walks in 800mg of motrin, then send them on their way,  and call that health care, but it doesn't make it so.  Not to mention that there will still most certainly be a huge amount of corruption in a government controlled system.  Those who are in control will still receive perks and benefits that you cant get.  The biggest difference now being that since you still pay for your healthcare, you at least have to option to pay for the treatment and receive the extra care.  Also, if they receive the special treatment, they still have to pay for it.  In this universal system.  You will pay the same as them ( probably close to nothing ) but they will receive a much higher standard than you are even eligible to ask for.

[Variable]

why is government intervention a bad thing. i would say today we need it.

A very simple answer would be that every time the government steps in and intervenes to make decisions for us.  That is taking freedom and liberty away from us.  It is a very bad idea to trust government to do right by you, especially at the cost of your liberty.

Also , most people like me would believe in the Federal Government staying out.  But letting things be handled at a State Level.  How can anyone intelligently assess that some withdrawn bureaucrat in Washington knows whats best for all of America?  how is the exact same policy going to benefit everyone in America equally?  How is it that one federalized education system is supposed to work the same for the kids in inner city Baltimore compared to the kids who live in Orange Country?  The country is huge, and varies a lot from state to state.  If the Federal Government would just stay out of issues, leaving power to the Governors.  Then the Governors could make more intelligent assessments and pass down their powers to the mayors based on the needs of the states.  To where the Mayors could make decisions based on the needs of the individual cities.  Then, at least those who were in charge of governing our lives would live in our own communities.  Would have to state their people in the face every day.  See the result of their decisions first hand.  It is a way for greater understanding and accountability

[alvarezbassist17]

not to mention in the private sector, there is competition for who can do things more effectively and efficiently.  a company that does poorly these days is quickly overtaken by a better one.  the government has no competition, so things are slower, less efficient, and more costly.  and think about it, the bigger it gets, the harder and harder it is for the little guy to try to make a change.  and taxes get higher, taking even more money out of the private sector (even more than these ridiculous bailouts) and hurting the economy.  socialist/nationalist america would not work.  period.

[bright lights, big city]

why is government intervention a bad thing. i would say today we need it.

A very simple answer would be that every time the government steps in and intervenes to make decisions for us.  That is taking freedom and liberty away from us.  It is a very bad idea to trust government to do right by you, especially at the cost of your liberty.

Also , most people like me would believe in the Federal Government staying out.  But letting things be handled at a State Level.  How can anyone intelligently assess that some withdrawn bureaucrat in Washington knows whats best for all of America?  how is the exact same policy going to benefit everyone in America equally?  How is it that one federalized education system is supposed to work the same for the kids in inner city Baltimore compared to the kids who live in Orange Country?  The country is huge, and varies a lot from state to state.  If the Federal Government would just stay out of issues, leaving power to the Governors.  Then the Governors could make more intelligent assessments and pass down their powers to the mayors based on the needs of the states.  To where the Mayors could make decisions based on the needs of the individual cities.  Then, at least those who were in charge of governing our lives would live in our own communities.  Would have to state their people in the face every day.  See the result of their decisions first hand.  It is a way for greater understanding and accountability

but how does a bailout take away our liberties? I agree that some government intervention does indeed take away liberties and freedoms (i.e. PATRIOT Act). But at this point, a big bailout is the lesser of 2 evils (I'm not 100% behind it necessarily, but it seems like that is our best option right now)

[goldpony]

it take away out liberties in that we no longer have a free market and a level playing field. in other words, the rich get richer while we have to pay for it. not to mention, this bailout does nothing to stop the behaviors that got these companies there in the first place. not to mention, it probably makes it harder for entrepeneurs trying to start a business, especially financial ones, when you have to have the goverments permission to do things. i agree that we need to do something, but this bailout is just bad business. Suze Orman said it best last night, it will be at least 2015 (at the earliest) before this gets turned around, even with the bailout.

[White Pwny]

[Runs With The Spirit]

Opionons is all you all got. Free yourselves from those skeletons in your closet. Always looking through life with a glass filled with smoke.

[Variable]

You sounds so intelligent when you speak so specifically.  Not abstract at all. 

[White Pwny]

lol.

[Variable]

this is why 3rd party candidates will never win.  Because of idiots like Ross.

[devilinside]

No,they wont win because they don't have enough money and backing.

[Variable]

Yup.  That is for sure a great criteria to vote for president.  Money.  All my presidents must have lots of money.  Otherwise, they are not legit.  I wont vote for someone who doesn't have a lot of money. 

[defkitty]

Back to healthcare-would you be opposed to having a basic national healthcare system for those who absolutely cannot afford it and private companies for those who can and prefer better care?  This seems to be the best idea I've heard yet; still giving people the freedom to choose while serving those who are desperate for care. 

And as far as these debates have been going I'm a little bored.  It would be nice to have third parties participate.  Most would argue that they don't stand a chance and therefore would be wasting valuable speaking time for the "rich" candidates and their "established" parties, but I definitely think it would be a lot more interesting to hear some alternatives.  It would be even more interesting to see the main two respond to some arguments by them (like "Senator McCain: how do feel about our dollar being backed by thin air?").

That would be much more interesting and possibly even entertaining.  It seems sickly unfair that we basically have a two party system in a nation as large as ours.  Plus more media coverage on this scale (not a primary debate, but one closer to the actual election) would likely give third parties more support.  This is mostly wishful thinking because obviously money rules everything- which I guess means nothing rules everything?  Wow.  On that philosophical note I think I'm done ranting.

[Variable]

if 3rd party candidates were in the debates, we would all see how truly idiotic and clueless Obama and McCain really are.  And when I mean idiotic and clueless, I mean idiotic and clueless.  The vague - broad - pre designed answerers they give, which just happen to be wrong anyways.  Are so fucking lame.  They are like using 1,000 words to say absolutely nothing.  Its amazing. 

as far as health care goes.  I don't think the government needs to get involved at all.  But I do believe that everyone should be able to receive health care.  How is this possible?  I swear to god I will get off my ass and type up what Ron Paul has to say about it.  I couldn't say it better.  Just give me another day or two.  Im about ready to go to bed.

[bright lights, big city]

good I want to hear it, because I think Obama's got a good plan for healthcare, especially compared to McCain's plan, which is BS because he wants to tax the "money" he gives us. Health care should be a right, not a privilege.

[defkitty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjuEdJ0DAGc

Ron Paul on healthcare

[devilinside]

Yup.  That is for sure a great criteria to vote for president.  Money.  All my presidents must have lots of money.  Otherwise, they are not legit.  I wont vote for someone who doesn't have a lot of money. 

No,I'm talking funding so they can get out there and campaign!

[bright lights, big city]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjuEdJ0DAGc

Ron Paul on healthcare

he makes a good point of cutting spending overseas. that is what I believe needs to be done, and Obama has hinted at that recently. Why the hell spend $10 billion per month in Iraq when our economy is crap?  They have a surplus (not $80 billion like Obama says, but still around $40B)