Is that true? That's madness! So if someone was born in the US and is a citizen, but never really lived there their whole life they still have to pay US tax? That's bizarre!
Ron Paul For President
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
- Status
Is that true? That's madness! So if someone was born in the US and is a citizen, but never really lived there their whole life they still have to pay US tax? That's bizarre!
You can't have it both ways. The image across the world is of the states being united. Maybe that's wrong (and a name change is in order), but that is the image most people have, that the US is one country, not 50. In the face of a natural disaster (exaggerated by poor decisions by local authorities and profit making companies from what I understand) the US should be even more united shouldn't it?
Have they spent as much of your taxes on rebuilding New Orleans as they have on destroying Iraq and Afghanistan?
How long has it been now? How many people are still without homes? If it had happened in say LA would the situation be the same?
I can understand you blaming the local government, but the citizens? How are they at fault? (Not having a go, just really don't understand that comment.)
An interesting viewpoint but I must respectfully disagree. You believe abortion is murder, plenty of people don't. No one really disagrees about whether shooting someone in the head is murder, or whether stabbing someone is murder. Generally speaking the issue seems to be based on religious convictions more than anything and I think that's why its a non issue here in the UK as people aren't very religious at all. Personally I would expect a truly consistent Libertarian to not want to allow the government to impose people's religious views on each other in this way *especially* when it comes down to what goes on in your own body. More than that though I would expect a Libertarian to recognise that criminalising something like abortion would not prevent abortions taking place, it would simply make them unsafe, unregulated in the worst possible way and in all likelihood increase dependence on government by single mothers as already mentioned. Look at the War on Drugs for an example of what government prohibition can effectively achieve in areas of personal behaviour and conscience.
As I say its very odd for me because in the UK this is simply a non issue. One thing that has always puzzled me though is that if pro lifers do genuinely consider abortion to be murder why don't they do more about it? If I thought my government was allowing the murder of thousands every year I would be actively fighting them not just voting Republican in the hope one day Roe vs Wade will be overturned. The fact that this doesn't happen makes me think the issue is more about the culture war that you guys have raging and about controlling women generally.
That's my view, as an Englishman who tries to take an interest in the USA.
Abortion, on any moral/ethical grounds is murder (unless the child endangers the mother's life). Why? because it's killing an unwanted person. Remember that there is always adoption. Abortion denies someone their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - so it's therefore unconstitutional and so Ron Paul agrees it should be illegal.
Rape you say? Let's just say your mom got raped and you came out. Would you rather have been killed by your mom or be alive and well, but just hate your father?
So I take it you don't think bombing abortion clinics is taking action? (I don't agree with that tactic though)
The day America becomes as secular as Europe will be very sad
This is my point exactly. Most of the world is a mess...
Plus, although I consider the U.S. to be far too socialist - you're right, most of the world is more socialist. The U.S. is playing world cops, waging war in two countries, and STILL has a higher employment rate than the finest run socialist countries in the world. Despite pissing away 1/3 of our tax dollars in the middle east, we still have a higher standard of living than 99% of the other countries in the world.
I usually DO believe in shades of grey... but this is one example where it is black and white: either you own the fruits of your own labor, or you don't.
Taxes on Income = Extortion.
====================================
BTW, LazyHippy I feel for ya --- a liberal stuck on a capitalist forum..maybe I'll go post on the Koz. :rasta:
They still have American rights, they still can freely come to America. Not bizarre at all.
The day America becomes as secular as Europe will be very sad
Sorry, but that's just wrong, church and state need to be separated. Even the Romans managed to figure that one out. How can you have a tolerate and fair society if one religion pulls the strings of the government?
But then, religious extremists rarely want a fair society do they?
Koz? sorry.. lost there.
Reading the comments here I can see I'm not alone - many others seem to feel that we should look after each other too.
Ok, I mentioned the developing world to add numbers to my argument. Maybe that distorted things, but 99% is way out mate - maybe 70-80%?
Compared to America, Europe is certainly not a mess. However you want to measure it the quality of life of the average person in Western Europe is higher than that of the average person in the US. Greater life expectancy, lower infant mortality, wide ranging studies show that people are happier and more content. They also often have more freedom (and I'm not just talking in monetary terms) - especially since the Patriot act (great name for a piece of legislation btw!
).Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness....? America still has a good few centuries of catching up to do. (Although admittedly, bar Australasia, you've done a good job at overtaking the other colonies.)
How are taxes on income extortion? Please explain that one.
The whole of the world is - to various extents - different shades of grey.
I fuckin hate labels, but if I really had to I'd put myself somewhere in between liberal and socialist, with a globalist view and a dash of anarchism.
Peace.
I think the cause for a lot of Americas problems are lobbyists, Political Action Commitees, and large corporate contributions. We need to get this self motivated influence out of politics.
If they dont like Ron Paul, that just makes me like Ron Paul more.
If they dont like Ron Paul, that just makes me like Ron Paul more.
First, I meant when many people become atheists thinking they have discovered logical and reason (LOL!).
Church and state are separate (I never argued about that, don't know what your talking about...), and it's good. I wouldn't want another religion ruling me, but that's all the constitution says btw, it doesn't say anything about religion in schools, etc.
'Extort' = to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power.
Taxes on income meet that definition. Some may argue the "illegal" portion, but force and intimidation are page one of any government's collection handbook. *exactly the way organized crime operates.
This type of thinking seems to indicate that libertarians are heartless. Looking after each other sounds great... but when you mean granting more power and money to incompetent meglomaniacs it doesn't seem like such a warm and fuzzy thought anymore.
Helping people by hiring bureaucrats is about as inefficient and misguided as a good intention can get.
1. You are FORCING people to give to charity. Charity is nice, but is raising money at gun-point nice?
2. You are removing productive members of society, by hiring enforcers and bean counters. These people are plucked from the beneficial producing side of society and brought into a position where they earn their living off the labor of others. They are the greatest benefactors of taxation. They are rarely accountable to anyone, often have lifetime appointments, and usually do the job so poorly that the private section would have not just fired them - but had them prosecuted.
3. This money is squandered. Between feeding the gov't leeches, losing some of it, misusing some of it, and then parceling it out in a manner geared towards political advantage rather than maximum benefit -- the money goes into this blackhole in rivers and comes out in drips.
4. Once it comes back to the private sector - it is often given out in an illogical fashion. Some goes to helping oil importers, multi-million dollar farms, unnecessary projects bearing the names of smug politicians... the list is huge. Then, when it reaches the poor they are often given the money in a manner that discourages them from working and developing job skills in entry level positions.
------------- there are more reasons, but the above should be plenty. Charity is great, and libertarians are all for charity. But using the force of government as an instrument of helping our neighbors is a terribly misguided good intention. Less people would need charity if economies weren't dragging bloated governments along behind them.
I wish that we could take the "good" ideas from each candidate and repackage them into one great candidate. Of all the ones out there right now Ron Paul has the most "good" ideas.
That being said, the idea that terrorists should not be fought overseas but here bothers me tremendously. The religious zealots of any religion that want to kill us should be stopped before they are able to inflict any more damage than they have on 9-11. Our national security does depend on us being able to fight our enemies and better on their turf than ours. I would not want Ron Paul for my Commander In Chief.
If socialized medicine works so well then why do rich non Americans come here for treatment? Laura is right. Do not get any more government involved in medicine than there is already. By the way, her stand about abortion being murder is dead on (sick pun on purpose).
The founding fathers wanted the least amount of federal government because they knew that local government had the most accountability to the governed. Your neighbor was the one in the city council or township trustee and you could go over and make your concerns and complaints known in person. Its also one of the reasons they made sure that the right of the people to own and bear arms was not to be infringed. They had just gone through the war in part because a nonlocal ruler was trying to increase taxes without the approval of the taxed, take away trial by peers, forced housing of a foreign army, and banning firearms ownership. Yes, you Brits really knew how to take care of your colonies!
As to our being unwilling to help the disadvantaged how wrong you are. The people of the United States have the highest per capital charitable giving of any country in the world. Why is it that the US is the one that every other country looks to when they need help. It is because we are a generous and compassionate people.
Why do we have an immigrant problem? Because we are the country that allows the most individual freedoms and if you are willing to put in the effort you are rewarded for it. Yes capitalism works. People are willing to take life threatening risks just to get into our country. We must be doing something right! I am tired of the world bashing the US. They are just jealous of our prosperity and envious of our individual freedoms.
That being said, the idea that terrorists should not be fought overseas but here bothers me tremendously. The religious zealots of any religion that want to kill us should be stopped before they are able to inflict any more damage than they have on 9-11. Our national security does depend on us being able to fight our enemies and better on their turf than ours. I would not want Ron Paul for my Commander In Chief.
If socialized medicine works so well then why do rich non Americans come here for treatment? Laura is right. Do not get any more government involved in medicine than there is already. By the way, her stand about abortion being murder is dead on (sick pun on purpose).
The founding fathers wanted the least amount of federal government because they knew that local government had the most accountability to the governed. Your neighbor was the one in the city council or township trustee and you could go over and make your concerns and complaints known in person. Its also one of the reasons they made sure that the right of the people to own and bear arms was not to be infringed. They had just gone through the war in part because a nonlocal ruler was trying to increase taxes without the approval of the taxed, take away trial by peers, forced housing of a foreign army, and banning firearms ownership. Yes, you Brits really knew how to take care of your colonies!
As to our being unwilling to help the disadvantaged how wrong you are. The people of the United States have the highest per capital charitable giving of any country in the world. Why is it that the US is the one that every other country looks to when they need help. It is because we are a generous and compassionate people.
Why do we have an immigrant problem? Because we are the country that allows the most individual freedoms and if you are willing to put in the effort you are rewarded for it. Yes capitalism works. People are willing to take life threatening risks just to get into our country. We must be doing something right! I am tired of the world bashing the US. They are just jealous of our prosperity and envious of our individual freedoms.
I agree there is too much bureaucracy, but the solution is to deal with that - change government, make it more accountable, and don't elect the megalomaniacs. Rather than reduce the scope of government and move the bureaucracy somewhere else and the responsibility into the hands of unaccountable corporations.
I'm going to leave this one now - we can agree to disagree. I see where you're coming from and I would be glad in Ron Paul wins as opposed to Gulliani, McCain, Clinton or Obama. I do think Kucinich or Edwards would be better for the world, but my perspective on this is going to be different than yours.
You said, "The day America becomes as secular as Europe will be very sad"
Secularity is the state of being separate from religion and does not equal atheism. Religion is the most divisive aspect of humanity, bar none. It is up to individuals to decide for themselves what they chose to believe - not the role of the the state or schools to push certain agendas. (Fits with capitalism in may ways - freedom for the individual, rather than collective decisions for society.)
To me pure atheism doesn't quite add up though, there are lots of things that suggest that there are different, maybe higher, forms of 'life'. Possibly could be regarded as gods or God. Some form of existence after death also seems extremely likely from my personal experience. But there is no evidence to suggest that organised religion is anything other than a method of control, pacification and security. If there is a God do you really think it would want or expect ritualised worship?
I'd normally tick the 'spiritual, but not religious' box, but in truth I'm probably an agnostic - I don't believe it is possible for the human mind to comprehend what may or may not exist. Since the birth of man, we have tried to and we have packaged it up into various systems of belief, only for it to be distorted for means of control and power into religions.
Christianity is the perfect example, anyone who knows a bit about the history knows the bible was written (or rather selectively complied) to advance a certain cause at a certain time. Propaganda of sorts. Yet still people cling to it for security. The word of a God they are desperate to believe in.
Why? Does it really surprise you?
I find it hard to believe the exact opposite: socialism makes society as a whole better.
Let's take a look at Hong Kong - the poorest of the poor are about as well off as the majority of society in essentially all countries in the USSR. It's essentially the same in the United States.
I see an implicit reference to capitalism: the right to contract.
If the government is there to secure the rights of all men, how about the right to contract? To do business with who you want to?
So the government takes my property and shares it with everyone?
In fact, the US Constitution specifically prohibits this with the fifth amendment. (The important part is after the last semi-colon.)
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Another thing to note is that the Constitution is the framework for our government, not the Declaration of Independence.
Can you say "non sequitur?"
I'm not sure how this is connected to Ron Paul, so at the risk of going completely off topic, I'll suggest you read Electoral College
Had to respond to this directly!
Much as I respect you Laura and I'm sure you aren't implying that half the world is mediocre, I do take offence at this.
I can't be bothered to dig out the stats (but will if pushed
Even here, where many argue for lower taxes and less government spending, no-one would suggest scrapping the NHS - it's just so beneficial to everyone - rich and poor. Even if it is shitly run sometimes and often wastes money... better that than be having to satisfy shareholders or being wheeled to a payment counter after seeing the doc (as I was in Thailand).
It seems it's an ideological thing - should we look after ourselves or should we look after each other?
If Laura implied that half the world is mediocre, she's close to being right. If she hasn't, I will say it: Half the world is damn close to mediocre.
Then I will suggest you go look up the term "empirical rule" on Google. Then, research "bell curve" and "normal distribution."
You use the term "free health care" as if there is such a thing. Are you saying that the doctors are enslaved and forced to provide health care for no money at gun point? How can it be free? Someone has to pay for it.
For me it's more than an ideological thing - it's the fact that the Pareto principle (the 80-20 rule) almost always holds true. Whatever form of government you have, somehow 80% of the wealth ends up in the hands of 20% of the populace. An "every man for himself" system (capitalism) seems to create a lot more wealth than an "every man for everyone else" (or should I say "every man after everyone else") system (socialism). If 80% of the populace is going to only control 20% of the wealth, it would be a good idea to make their 20% chunk as large as possible. Socialism does a terrible job at this.
For you it seems to be an idealistic thing. You seem to believe that we can put people in power who actually care about the best interests of the population, not their own best interests. I hate to break it to you, but it's only a small minority that are actually like that. Most are greedy and self-serving.
And one bit of anecdotal evidence: loads of people in Canada (a country with socialized medicine) come to the US for private health care. I wonder why.
It's nice to see that a good bit of WF is behind Ron Paul. Being a huge gun enthusiast and gun owner, Ron Paul is definitely the candidate for me. I've already donated to his campaign, and urge others to do so also.
Just kidding, bro.Carmach, thanks for your response.
I referred to the declaration of independence in reply to a statement that the US was founded on capitalism. Please, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the 5th amendment to your constitution was part of the basis for founding the United States.
You are right though, part of it is idealistic - I certainly feel all nations should try to ensure they elect a government that is accountable and there to serve the best interests of the whole of the population. I think it is quite sad to just accept that all politicians are just in it for themselves and so because of that we should limit the scope of their powers. Ron Paul seems to be a good example of one who is not just in it for himself.
There is a big difference between countries though. In the US a president is elected and then often appoints his cronies to powerful positions. In the UK, the Prime Minister was recently questioned by police when he awarded peerages to his cronies - big difference. (The police didn't press charges though, but the media have ensured that is unlikely to happen to the same extent any time soon.)
I think a system where leading positions (such as secretary of defence) are only held by elected rather than appointed officials goes a long way to making government more accountable and less corrupt (or just in it for themselves).
I know many will disagree, but my main argument is that compared to the US, countries like the UK and Canada are doing a better job at providing a good quality of life for all of their citizens. It's by no means perfect though and I think many other countries, such as Holland for example, are doing a much better job.
Regarding electoral systems - both the UK and US are using systems developed when communication was a fraction of what is it now. They are outdated. We both should move to modern systems where one vote is equal to another to eradicate the anomaly where an election can be won by a person/party who loses the popular vote.
By the way, I think most people understand, but by 'free health care', I mean free at the point of service. Doctors obviously have choices, some chose to work for private companies, yet many chose to work in 'socialised' health care systems.
I referred to the declaration of independence in reply to a statement that the US was founded on capitalism. Please, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the 5th amendment to your constitution was part of the basis for founding the United States.
You are right though, part of it is idealistic - I certainly feel all nations should try to ensure they elect a government that is accountable and there to serve the best interests of the whole of the population. I think it is quite sad to just accept that all politicians are just in it for themselves and so because of that we should limit the scope of their powers. Ron Paul seems to be a good example of one who is not just in it for himself.
There is a big difference between countries though. In the US a president is elected and then often appoints his cronies to powerful positions. In the UK, the Prime Minister was recently questioned by police when he awarded peerages to his cronies - big difference. (The police didn't press charges though, but the media have ensured that is unlikely to happen to the same extent any time soon.)
I think a system where leading positions (such as secretary of defence) are only held by elected rather than appointed officials goes a long way to making government more accountable and less corrupt (or just in it for themselves).
I know many will disagree, but my main argument is that compared to the US, countries like the UK and Canada are doing a better job at providing a good quality of life for all of their citizens. It's by no means perfect though and I think many other countries, such as Holland for example, are doing a much better job.
Regarding electoral systems - both the UK and US are using systems developed when communication was a fraction of what is it now. They are outdated. We both should move to modern systems where one vote is equal to another to eradicate the anomaly where an election can be won by a person/party who loses the popular vote.
By the way, I think most people understand, but by 'free health care', I mean free at the point of service. Doctors obviously have choices, some chose to work for private companies, yet many chose to work in 'socialised' health care systems.
Abortion, on any moral/ethical grounds is murder (unless the child endangers the mother's life). Why? because it's killing an unwanted person. Remember that there is always adoption. Abortion denies someone their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - so it's therefore unconstitutional and so Ron Paul agrees it should be illegal.
Rape you say? Let's just say your mom got raped and you came out. Would you rather have been killed by your mom or be alive and well, but just hate your father?
So I take it you don't think bombing abortion clinics is taking action? (I don't agree with that tactic though)
The day America becomes as secular as Europe will be very sad
Again I have to respectfully disagree. No, abortion is not murder on any moral or ethical stance, its murder on your ethical framework but not on mine or on that of millions in your country and around the developed world. You may indeed consider it to be depriving a person of their rights, but I simply don't consider a fetus to be a person, its that simple.
Given that we reasonably disagree and there is no chance of the debate being settled as your position is based on religious faith, my position is simply that the government should let the individual decide. If you don't want to have an abortion, don't but don't demand that the government puts my daughter in prison because of your religious views on what constitutes a person. Ultimately, Jesus will judge people on their sins anyway won't he?
I do absolutely think that bombing abortion clinics is taking action. My point is simply that so little of it goes on. Personally speaking if I thought my government was involved in mass murder I would be out violently opposing them. The fact that: a) so few pro lifers do take action of this kind and b) that more men than women tend to be 'pro life' suggests to me that a lot more of the issue surrounds controlling women, keeping them in the subservient position that being held hostage to their reproductive systems puts them in rather than in protecting life per se.
Again though, to me it comes down to an issue of freedom. You say it would be awful is the USA became more secular. Why? In my country you can abstain from sex until marragie, you don't have to have an abortion, if you don't want to view pornography you don't have to, you can go to Church and practice whatever religion you want, you don't have to take the morning after pill if you don't want to. In short, you are free to be religious to your heart's content. However, what you aren't free to do is to impose your view of what religion is on other people in the ways that happen over there with restrictions on abortion, restrictions on eaching evolution, pharmacists not selling the morning after pill, abstinence only sex ed etc. This is deeply ironic because we actually have an established church and no obvious separation of Church and State. Despite that however people's tolerance for religious folk interfering in government business is remarkably, and thankfully low.
Personally I like having the freedom to choose how I live my life AND I like others having that too.
- Status