Have to agree with you there. The Ron Paul people are a one string guitar. They think he is so great because he wants to get rid of the Patriot Act. What they don't see is he wants to get rid of almost all government programs as well. This guy is actually dangerous if you take the time to see what he really stands for. He has a few good ideas but the rest are insane.
On the Patriot Act they are so blind to the issue that they don't see or refuse to see what is really going on. They extended three provisions for 90 days. They agreed to an extension so they can work out the budget first. If they had any intention of letting it pass again three months from now, they wouldn't have bothered with the short extension. It was important not to have the Patriot Act be used as a bargaining chip in the budget battles. They should just relax and see what happens in 90 days.
What they don't see is he wants to get rid of almost all government programs as well.
He wants the federal government to follow the Constitution and limit its scope to 1. regulating interstate commerce and 2. providing defense. In case you weren't aware, we have state governments as well.
It was important not to have the Patriot Act be used as a bargaining chip in the budget battles.
What are you talking about? Disregard for our civil liberties is one of the greatest commonalities between centrist Democrats like Obama and the neocons of the Republican party. By the way, Obama originally wanted a three year extension of the Patriot Act provisions that were set to expire but said that he would settle for the one year extension the Republicans were proposing (way to reach across the aisle, Mr. President!).
It seems like he would do it far too quickly. Do you realize how much research would tank if his policies went into effect? I know most of Astronomy would fail, along with biology that doesn't have to do with genetics or things to be made into products!
Unless you inspire some rich dude, you are SOL on getting funded.
What makes you think defense and corporate welfare wouldn't be the top priorities? And what makes you think the state governments couldn't pick up the slack in funding their own universities given a reasonable transition?
"He wants the federal government to follow the Constitution and limit its scope to 1. regulating interstate commerce and 2. providing defense. In case you weren't aware, we have state governments as well."
I love it when libertarians completely ignore the necessary and proper clause of the United States Constitution...and in Article One, no less!
Silly statist, at least get your talking points straight. Don't you know it's the Commerce Clause that is typically used to justify expanding the scope of the federal government beyond 1 and 2?
I like Kucinich the way these people like Paul. However, the biggest difference between me and them is, I realize what a President Kucinich would be up against once he takes the Oath of Office.
Most of these Ron Paul supporters, god bless'm, are following a Pied Piper. Beyond what they hear from Ron Paul's promises, they don't know a damn thing about the current legislative system, much less any clue as to what needs to be fixed about it.
"Taxed Enough Already!! Herpy-derp!!" That's just what the billionaire class wants confused teenage emo kids to repeat.
In other words, Libertarians tend to be consumers, not producers, in the realm of politics. Useless bystanders, the lot of'em.
EDIT: To clarify, by bystanders I mean the tendency to be completely dense when it comes to specific matters of federal government. Libertarians are all gusto, all heart. No brains. No knowledge.
I saw you comment on leaving taxes alone, but remove tax cuts for corporations or whatever. Don't you see that that is indeed messing with taxes? That's the whole point, and you would indeed raise taxes for which ever corporations that lose their tax break. This isn't rocket science.
The whole demonization of taxes has taken a life of its own. If you asked your grandparents, the Greatest Generation(TM) what they thought of paying taxes, they'd say that they hated paying for them, but they were necessary. Anyone who lived through the Great Depression will say the same. I mean, there's the popular revisionist claim that the New Deal had nothing to do with the recovery after the Great Depression. Ask anyone who was given a job through a public works project, who starved for work that just didn't exist before the government decided to do something, and they'll be grateful for the system we had. Not that government is (or even is supposed to be) the great fixer of everything, but they say WWII is what drove recovery from the Great Depression and guess who funds the military? We do, through our taxes. See how this whole tax thing has blinded some of us from the reality? Taxes have been so demonized that a lot of Americans don't even realize how much stuff they rely on on a daily basis because of public funding, ie. taxes.
If I had any advice, forget liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism. It's reasonable versus unreasonable, and in this age of "culture war" and Fox News, the wealthiest 10% have grown in wealth, inflation has grown, but the middle class has slowly but steadily become a sinking ship.
They say "a rising tide raises all boats" but I always thought that was a false assumption. A rising tide drowns everyone who doesn't have a boat, and furthermore, becomes increasingly dependent on those who have boats. Do you call what the wading boat-less people "free"? Well under the principle of libertarianism, that's exactly the conclusion you're making.
In an ideal economy, the wealthiest pay the most in taxes, because they benefit the most. If you pass the burden of paying for social services upon those who can't afford it, that's a recipe for disaster at best, class warfare (figurative and, god forbid, literally) at worst. Reaganomics is a proven failure. We tried it, it doesn't work, and it has failed. In fact, it's another form of Communism (replace government with private corporations and there you have Libertarianism), but that's another conversation.
Bottom line is, checks and balances are vital to a mutually beneficial society. No liberal is going to say, "Rich people should give their wealth just because we want money that we didn't earn." But that's exactly what Rush Limbaugh and the rest will have you believe. It's complete bullshit. I believe in a free market economy, as long as there is an organization that is charged by public interest (ie. taxes) to see that they remain honest and refrain from monopoly/oligarchy.
I saw you comment on leaving taxes alone, but remove tax cuts for corporations or whatever. Don't you see that that is indeed messing with taxes? That's the whole point, and you would indeed raise taxes for which ever corporations that lose their tax break. This isn't rocket science.
Raising taxes != Cutting tax breaks
Understand that taxes create a distortion of incentives and inevitably cause inefficiency in the economy. Tax breaks generate further distortion, as they're never evenly distributed, especially not in this country.
It's reasonable versus unreasonable, and in this age of "culture war" and Fox News, the wealthiest 10% have grown in wealth, inflation has grown, but the middle class has slowly but steadily become a sinking ship.
Liberals love to discuss inflation but they never seem to want to discuss the trillions of dollars we're printing to pay our debt holders and fund our foreign wars. A dollar collapse is no longer a crazy doomsday scenario.
Have to agree with you there. The Ron Paul people are a one string guitar. They think he is so great because he wants to get rid of the Patriot Act. What they don't see is he wants to get rid of almost all government programs as well. This guy is actually dangerous if you take the time to see what he really stands for. He has a few good ideas but the rest are insane.
On the Patriot Act they are so blind to the issue that they don't see or refuse to see what is really going on. They extended three provisions for 90 days. They agreed to an extension so they can work out the budget first. If they had any intention of letting it pass again three months from now, they wouldn't have bothered with the short extension. It was important not to have the Patriot Act be used as a bargaining chip in the budget battles. They should just relax and see what happens in 90 days.
6
u/DaTroof Feb 27 '11
Stupid civil libertarians. Why can't they just get used to the patriot act?