ron paul's candidacy suddenly explained.

[First]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Wearing libertarian garb but a Federalist at heart.

Towing party lines is for those with no independent thought.

Independent thought? LOL

How ironic.

Let me know when you have YOUR OWN ideas instead of some regurgitated lessons you were taught in class.

What gives me independent thought is the ability to ascertain the validity of various discussions based on the information I've learned through reading, education, experience, and deep thought, and then drawing my own conclusions independently and/or in a unique way. Hell, based on your own words I am as unique politically as it gets; a Libertarian party member with "Federalist" tendencies (why the hell you're using the term "Federalist", a dead 200 year old party, I have no idea).

In the end, the content of your argument is the only real thing that matters. And rofl @ you criticizing someone for learning in a classroom. :laugh:

Wrong. I didn't criticize you for learning in a classroom. I criticized you for trying to pass off classroom learning as independent ideas. Notice the difference?

Your poor inference isn't my problem, frankly.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Wearing libertarian garb but a Federalist at heart.

Towing party lines is for those with no independent thought.

Independent thought? LOL

How ironic.

Let me know when you have YOUR OWN ideas instead of some regurgitated lessons you were taught in class.

What gives me independent thought is the ability to ascertain the validity of various discussions based on the information I've learned through reading, education, experience, and deep thought, and then drawing my own conclusions independently and/or in a unique way. Hell, based on your own words I am as unique politically as it gets; a Libertarian party member with "Federalist" tendencies (why the hell you're using the term "Federalist", a dead 200 year old party, I have no idea).

In the end, the content of your argument is the only real thing that matters. And rofl @ you criticizing someone for learning in a classroom. :laugh:

Wrong. I didn't criticize you for learning in a classroom. I criticized you for trying to pass off classroom learning as independent ideas. Notice the difference?

Your poor inference isn't my problem, frankly.

And your poor reading comprehension isn't mine.

 

[Fern]

Over the past few days, some posters have shown a tendancy to derail this thread into personal squabbling unrelated to the topic. Please try to stay On Topic.

T.I.A.

Fern
AnandTech P&N Moderator

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Does that 'backing' include the $52 trillion in unfunded federal liabilities over the next 20 years?

What will we ever do? Our GDP, assuming a conservative 1.5% growth, will *only* be 345Tr during that time. Shit, we're all screwed.

Indefinite growth is a stupid bet. This population growth required for that will never be sustained safely.

^ I think it's safe to assume based on 200+ years of history that the U.S. can continue to grow at great speed considering the laws, economics and most definitely the immense population growth the U.S. enjoys. In fact, there's basically no question the U.S. population will grow in perpetuity for many, many years when you consider the replacement rates of whites is 2.0, Hispanics 2.7, blacks 2.4, and all that in addition to the 2 million legal immigrants allowed in every year. Sustaining population growth is not the problem; just so long as the U.S. keeps creating 100,000 jobs every quarter, which is the pace that has to be kept to keep up with population growth. Really no reason to believe the economy will stop growing.

But does anyone actually think that growth alone will solve the problem of the $53 trillion in entitlements we'll be facing in the next 30 years?

 

[JS80]

Your liberties will always be trampled in a Democracy.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Does that 'backing' include the $52 trillion in unfunded federal liabilities over the next 20 years?

What will we ever do? Our GDP, assuming a conservative 1.5% growth, will *only* be 345Tr during that time. Shit, we're all screwed.

Indefinite growth is a stupid bet. This population growth required for that will never be sustained safely.

^ I think it's safe to assume based on 200+ years of history that the U.S. can continue to grow at great speed considering the laws, economics and most definitely the immense population growth the U.S. enjoys. In fact, there's basically no question the U.S. population will grow in perpetuity for many, many years when you consider the replacement rates of whites is 2.0, Hispanics 2.7, blacks 2.4, and all that in addition to the 2 million legal immigrants allowed in every year. Sustaining population growth is not the problem; just so long as the U.S. keeps creating 100,000 jobs every quarter, which is the pace that has to be kept to keep up with population growth. Really no reason to believe the economy will stop growing.

But does anyone actually think that growth alone will solve the problem of the $53 trillion in entitlements we'll be facing in the next 30 years?

I don't know if that's an accurate figure, but yes, it is nowhere near unrealistic for the U.S. to come up with trillions of dollar for Medicare/Medicaid/SS. They simply have to cut some gov't programs, cut other spending (Iraq), and raise taxes back up to pre-Bush levels.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Wearing libertarian garb but a Federalist at heart.

Towing party lines is for those with no independent thought.

Independent thought? LOL

How ironic.

Let me know when you have YOUR OWN ideas instead of some regurgitated lessons you were taught in class.

What gives me independent thought is the ability to ascertain the validity of various discussions based on the information I've learned through reading, education, experience, and deep thought, and then drawing my own conclusions independently and/or in a unique way. Hell, based on your own words I am as unique politically as it gets; a Libertarian party member with "Federalist" tendencies (why the hell you're using the term "Federalist", a dead 200 year old party, I have no idea).

In the end, the content of your argument is the only real thing that matters. And rofl @ you criticizing someone for learning in a classroom. :laugh:

Wrong. I didn't criticize you for learning in a classroom. I criticized you for trying to pass off classroom learning as independent ideas. Notice the difference?

Your poor inference isn't my problem, frankly.

And your poor reading comprehension isn't mine.

This is a good cop out, excellent decision.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Does that 'backing' include the $52 trillion in unfunded federal liabilities over the next 20 years?

What will we ever do? Our GDP, assuming a conservative 1.5% growth, will *only* be 345Tr during that time. Shit, we're all screwed.

Indefinite growth is a stupid bet. This population growth required for that will never be sustained safely.

^ I think it's safe to assume based on 200+ years of history that the U.S. can continue to grow at great speed considering the laws, economics and most definitely the immense population growth the U.S. enjoys. In fact, there's basically no question the U.S. population will grow in perpetuity for many, many years when you consider the replacement rates of whites is 2.0, Hispanics 2.7, blacks 2.4, and all that in addition to the 2 million legal immigrants allowed in every year. Sustaining population growth is not the problem; just so long as the U.S. keeps creating 100,000 jobs every quarter, which is the pace that has to be kept to keep up with population growth. Really no reason to believe the economy will stop growing.

But does anyone actually think that growth alone will solve the problem of the $53 trillion in entitlements we'll be facing in the next 30 years?

I don't know if that's an accurate figure, but yes, it is nowhere near unrealistic for the U.S. to come up with trillions of dollar for Medicare/Medicaid/SS. They simply have to cut some gov't programs, cut other spending (Iraq), and raise taxes back up to pre-Bush levels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs

What government programs would you cut?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb


Your poor inference isn't my problem, frankly.

And your poor reading comprehension isn't mine.

This is a good cop out, excellent decision.

Not a cop out. It's the truth. I'm sure someone of your high standards doesn't like to be shown his ignorance. So in *fact*, you're the one using a "cop out" to save face.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Does that 'backing' include the $52 trillion in unfunded federal liabilities over the next 20 years?

What will we ever do? Our GDP, assuming a conservative 1.5% growth, will *only* be 345Tr during that time. Shit, we're all screwed.

Indefinite growth is a stupid bet. This population growth required for that will never be sustained safely.

^ I think it's safe to assume based on 200+ years of history that the U.S. can continue to grow at great speed considering the laws, economics and most definitely the immense population growth the U.S. enjoys. In fact, there's basically no question the U.S. population will grow in perpetuity for many, many years when you consider the replacement rates of whites is 2.0, Hispanics 2.7, blacks 2.4, and all that in addition to the 2 million legal immigrants allowed in every year. Sustaining population growth is not the problem; just so long as the U.S. keeps creating 100,000 jobs every quarter, which is the pace that has to be kept to keep up with population growth. Really no reason to believe the economy will stop growing.

But does anyone actually think that growth alone will solve the problem of the $53 trillion in entitlements we'll be facing in the next 30 years?

I don't know if that's an accurate figure, but yes, it is nowhere near unrealistic for the U.S. to come up with trillions of dollar for Medicare/Medicaid/SS. They simply have to cut some gov't programs, cut other spending (Iraq), and raise taxes back up to pre-Bush levels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs

What government programs would you cut?

That's an excellent video clip, I agree with Walker 100%. In any case, I'd cut off:

1) The ability of SS money to be politically controlled, which itself would save billions in irresponsible siphoning of SS funds.

2) I'd cut out Department of Agriculture spending on farming subsidies, which always lead to horribly unbalanced social benefits, i.e. high pricing for millions of consumers domestically while benefiting only limited numbers of producers here.

3) I'd cut out redundant programs within the Dept of Education and local/state departments, which consistently contain similar mandates and, worst yet, uncorrodinated efforts and even contradictory efforts in achieving similar goals (such infrastructure expansion, funding for books and teachers, etc.).

4) Work aggressively with the WTO and other world leaders on unilateral reductions in import tariffs and export subsidies, both of which are horribly inefficient for consumers and producers (though very small tariffs have shown to be efficient in some cases).

 

[First]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb


Your poor inference isn't my problem, frankly.

And your poor reading comprehension isn't mine.

This is a good cop out, excellent decision.

Not a cop out. It's the truth. I'm sure someone of your high standards doesn't like to be shown his ignorance. So in *fact*, you're the one using a "cop out" to save face.

You didn't reply to anything I said about independent thought nor did you reply to yullus' posts about it. It's a good cop out on your part, because quite obviously there's no logical reply you could make other than "You're right, I concede", which an AT mod should be able to do but for whatever reason you simply can't muster the courage. Oh well.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Does that 'backing' include the $52 trillion in unfunded federal liabilities over the next 20 years?

What will we ever do? Our GDP, assuming a conservative 1.5% growth, will *only* be 345Tr during that time. Shit, we're all screwed.

Indefinite growth is a stupid bet. This population growth required for that will never be sustained safely.

^ I think it's safe to assume based on 200+ years of history that the U.S. can continue to grow at great speed considering the laws, economics and most definitely the immense population growth the U.S. enjoys. In fact, there's basically no question the U.S. population will grow in perpetuity for many, many years when you consider the replacement rates of whites is 2.0, Hispanics 2.7, blacks 2.4, and all that in addition to the 2 million legal immigrants allowed in every year. Sustaining population growth is not the problem; just so long as the U.S. keeps creating 100,000 jobs every quarter, which is the pace that has to be kept to keep up with population growth. Really no reason to believe the economy will stop growing.

But does anyone actually think that growth alone will solve the problem of the $53 trillion in entitlements we'll be facing in the next 30 years?

I don't know if that's an accurate figure, but yes, it is nowhere near unrealistic for the U.S. to come up with trillions of dollar for Medicare/Medicaid/SS. They simply have to cut some gov't programs, cut other spending (Iraq), and raise taxes back up to pre-Bush levels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs

What government programs would you cut?

That's an excellent video clip, I agree with Walker 100%. In any case, I'd cut off:

1) The ability of SS money to be politically controlled, which itself would save billions in irresponsible siphoning of SS funds.

2) I'd cut out Department of Agriculture spending on farming subsidies, which always lead to horribly unbalanced social benefits, i.e. high pricing for millions of consumers domestically while benefiting only limited numbers of producers here.

3) I'd cut out redundant programs within the Dept of Education and local/state departments, which consistently contain similar mandates and, worst yet, uncorrodinated efforts and even contradictory efforts in achieving similar goals (such infrastructure expansion, funding for books and teachers, etc.).

4) Work aggressively with the WTO and other world leaders on unilateral reductions in import tariffs and export subsidies, both of which are horribly inefficient for consumers and producers (though very small tariffs have shown to be efficient in some cases).

And do you think Obama would do any of this, or get Comgress to?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Does that 'backing' include the $52 trillion in unfunded federal liabilities over the next 20 years?

What will we ever do? Our GDP, assuming a conservative 1.5% growth, will *only* be 345Tr during that time. Shit, we're all screwed.

Indefinite growth is a stupid bet. This population growth required for that will never be sustained safely.

^ I think it's safe to assume based on 200+ years of history that the U.S. can continue to grow at great speed considering the laws, economics and most definitely the immense population growth the U.S. enjoys. In fact, there's basically no question the U.S. population will grow in perpetuity for many, many years when you consider the replacement rates of whites is 2.0, Hispanics 2.7, blacks 2.4, and all that in addition to the 2 million legal immigrants allowed in every year. Sustaining population growth is not the problem; just so long as the U.S. keeps creating 100,000 jobs every quarter, which is the pace that has to be kept to keep up with population growth. Really no reason to believe the economy will stop growing.

But does anyone actually think that growth alone will solve the problem of the $53 trillion in entitlements we'll be facing in the next 30 years?

I don't know if that's an accurate figure, but yes, it is nowhere near unrealistic for the U.S. to come up with trillions of dollar for Medicare/Medicaid/SS. They simply have to cut some gov't programs, cut other spending (Iraq), and raise taxes back up to pre-Bush levels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs

What government programs would you cut?

That's an excellent video clip, I agree with Walker 100%. In any case, I'd cut off:

1) The ability of SS money to be politically controlled, which itself would save billions in irresponsible siphoning of SS funds.

2) I'd cut out Department of Agriculture spending on farming subsidies, which always lead to horribly unbalanced social benefits, i.e. high pricing for millions of consumers domestically while benefiting only limited numbers of producers here.

3) I'd cut out redundant programs within the Dept of Education and local/state departments, which consistently contain similar mandates and, worst yet, uncorrodinated efforts and even contradictory efforts in achieving similar goals (such infrastructure expansion, funding for books and teachers, etc.).

4) Work aggressively with the WTO and other world leaders on unilateral reductions in import tariffs and export subsidies, both of which are horribly inefficient for consumers and producers (though very small tariffs have shown to be efficient in some cases).

And do you think Obama would do any of this, or get Comgress to?

I don't know for sure, but I'm not voting for Obama. I'm not voting this election cycle period, actually. In any case, you never know with politicians what they'll actually do when it comes to actually acting on their promises.

 

[First]

^ Btw, I do think Paul would do everything in his power to get those things done, which is why I've supported him more than any other candidate. But he's far too unrealistic in much of his approach; he's definitely not a leader, as you said.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
^ Btw, I do think Paul would do everything in his power to get those things done, which is why I've supported him more than any other candidate. But he's far too unrealistic in much of his approach; he's definitely not a leader, as you said.

I agree. I think what Americans are going to have to realize that if we want to change this country, we can't start with the President. We're going to have to change Congress first. But that's the American way of thinking isn't it, trying to get the job done the easy way, cutting corners? I'm as guilty as the rest I suppose.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb


Your poor inference isn't my problem, frankly.

And your poor reading comprehension isn't mine.

This is a good cop out, excellent decision.

Not a cop out. It's the truth. I'm sure someone of your high standards doesn't like to be shown his ignorance. So in *fact*, you're the one using a "cop out" to save face.

You didn't reply to anything I said about independent thought nor did you reply to yullus' posts about it. It's a good cop out on your part, because quite obviously there's no logical reply you could make other than "You're right, I concede", which an AT mod should be able to do but for whatever reason you simply can't muster the courage. Oh well.

When I post to you now, I'm posting as a member not a Mod. So get that right first. Secondly, you and yllus both misdirected the argument saying I was basically belittling you for taking classes. Which is not true as I pointed out in the above posts. When I showed you the difference you called it a "cop out" which I proved was *your* cop out in truth. Now you continue with more idiocy. All you have to do is concede that you mistook what I said and leave it at that. But I guess your *ego* won't let you. A shame.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb


Your poor inference isn't my problem, frankly.

And your poor reading comprehension isn't mine.

This is a good cop out, excellent decision.

Not a cop out. It's the truth. I'm sure someone of your high standards doesn't like to be shown his ignorance. So in *fact*, you're the one using a "cop out" to save face.

You didn't reply to anything I said about independent thought nor did you reply to yullus' posts about it. It's a good cop out on your part, because quite obviously there's no logical reply you could make other than "You're right, I concede", which an AT mod should be able to do but for whatever reason you simply can't muster the courage. Oh well.

When I post to you now, I'm posting as a member not a Mod. So get that right first. Secondly, you and yllus both misdirected the argument saying I was basically belittling you for taking classes. Which is not true as I pointed out in the above posts. When I showed you the difference you called it a "cop out" which I proved was *your* cop out in truth. Now you continue with more idiocy. All you have to do is concede that you mistook what I said and leave it at that. But I guess your *ego* won't let you. A shame.

:roll: You said I "regurgitated lessons you were taught in class". Even if this were true, you still don't address why that can't still be independent thought since classroom learning isn't restricted strictly to facts and figures, but also teaching independent analytical abilities. You didn't define independent thought, you deflected saying I couldn't read. Completely backwards logic. yllus tried to tell you this and you ignored it, claiming more reading comprehension nonsense. Like I said, for whatever reason you will continue to stick to your position. Oh well.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
^ I think it's safe to assume based on 200+ years of history that the U.S. can continue to grow at great speed considering the laws, economics and most definitely the immense population growth the U.S. enjoys. In fact, there's basically no question the U.S. population will grow in perpetuity for many, many years when you consider the replacement rates of whites is 2.0, Hispanics 2.7, blacks 2.4, and all that in addition to the 2 million legal immigrants allowed in every year. Sustaining population growth is not the problem; just so long as the U.S. keeps creating 100,000 jobs every quarter, which is the pace that has to be kept to keep up with population growth. Really no reason to believe the economy will stop growing.

I may have worded that poorly. It?s not that we won?t grow. It?s that, as you said, we?ve been growing for 200+ years so I?m saying how much more can we sustain safely? Our finite resources come to mind as something that contradicts indefinite growth. I?m saying it isn?t going to be healthy to add another 150 million people.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb


:roll: You said I "regurgitated lessons you were taught in class". Even if this were true, you still don't address why that can't still be independent thought since classroom learning isn't restricted strictly to facts and figures, but also teaching independent analytical abilities. You didn't define independent thought, you deflected saying I couldn't read. Completely backwards logic. yllus tried to tell you this and you ignored it, claiming more reading comprehension nonsense. Like I said, for whatever reason you will continue to stick to your position. Oh well.

Mind if we take this to PM? Not very nice of me to continue with you when Fern asked us not to. See ya there

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
^ I think it's safe to assume based on 200+ years of history that the U.S. can continue to grow at great speed considering the laws, economics and most definitely the immense population growth the U.S. enjoys. In fact, there's basically no question the U.S. population will grow in perpetuity for many, many years when you consider the replacement rates of whites is 2.0, Hispanics 2.7, blacks 2.4, and all that in addition to the 2 million legal immigrants allowed in every year. Sustaining population growth is not the problem; just so long as the U.S. keeps creating 100,000 jobs every quarter, which is the pace that has to be kept to keep up with population growth. Really no reason to believe the economy will stop growing.

I may have worded that poorly. It?s not that we won?t grow. It?s that, as you said, we?ve been growing for 200+ years so I?m saying how much more can we sustain safely? Our finite resources come to mind as something that contradicts indefinite growth. I?m saying it isn?t going to be healthy to add another 150 million people.

I agree that growth, particularly population-wise, that occurs rapidly can be very dangerous. India and China are prime examples of that, where they literally just displace and/or kill people to make way for public works projects. I do think that as long as the U.S. reasonably controls the entrance of immigrants annually, that overall we should be be able to handle it. I wish we could allow in every immigrant that wants to be here considering the immense net benefits they have on our lives, but 2M per year is probably about right. In terms of economic growth, that's always tough to say, but if I had to guess I'd say that as long as foreign investment is there and basic corporate and finance law stays the same, that the US can continue to be a leading and growing world power for quite a long while.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: loki8481
I wondered why he pushed his 4% brigade so far, and I figured it was ego... suddenly, it's all making a lot more sense:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...8220601&pf_rd_i=507846

Ron Paul pushed nothing. He didn't go looking for support. His support went looking for him.

I challenge anyone to find a Congressman as honest, with as much integrity, and as much respect for the the Constitution, the rule of law, and American freedoms and liberties.

I'd say Ron Paul's creationism is either intellectual dishonesty or severe ignorance.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: loki8481
I wondered why he pushed his 4% brigade so far, and I figured it was ego... suddenly, it's all making a lot more sense:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...8220601&pf_rd_i=507846

Ron Paul pushed nothing. He didn't go looking for support. His support went looking for him.

I challenge anyone to find a Congressman as honest, with as much integrity, and as much respect for the the Constitution, the rule of law, and American freedoms and liberties.

I'd say Ron Paul's creationism is either intellectual dishonesty or severe ignorance.

Which has nothing to do with his voting record. Try again, spanky.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: loki8481
I wondered why he pushed his 4% brigade so far, and I figured it was ego... suddenly, it's all making a lot more sense:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ...8220601&pf_rd_i=507846

Ron Paul pushed nothing. He didn't go looking for support. His support went looking for him.

I challenge anyone to find a Congressman as honest, with as much integrity, and as much respect for the the Constitution, the rule of law, and American freedoms and liberties.

I'd say Ron Paul's creationism is either intellectual dishonesty or severe ignorance.

Like I have said in another thread, if a politician respects the division between the rule of law and religious beliefs, then his religious beliefs matter not. And none of the candidates respects the Constitution and the rule of law more so than Paul.