Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 09:13:57 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoins for Ron Paul.  (Read 4213 times)
ryepdx
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile WWW
May 15, 2011, 07:57:25 AM
 #21

What if you were to put a time limit on the identity/address association?
1481361237
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481361237

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481361237
Reply with quote  #2

1481361237
Report to moderator
1481361237
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481361237

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481361237
Reply with quote  #2

1481361237
Report to moderator
"There should not be any signed int. If you've found a signed int somewhere, please tell me (within the next 25 years please) and I'll change it to unsigned int." -- Satoshi
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481361237
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481361237

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481361237
Reply with quote  #2

1481361237
Report to moderator
1481361237
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481361237

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481361237
Reply with quote  #2

1481361237
Report to moderator
Nesetalis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420



View Profile
May 15, 2011, 09:31:51 PM
 #22

Because of all the hubub here over ron paul, i decided to look a bit closer at him.
I again decided he is not the canidate for me. I'm very much a fiscal conservative, love the idea of a smaller government.. but I personally do believe it is the place of government to take care of those who are incapable of taking care of themselves. I also like the idea of regulation based on scientific fact (how much radium is bad for you in the drinking water?)

Most of his message i agree with, get off the back of citizens... but I'll never support some one who would take the wheelchair out from under some one who had no family, no way to work physically, and not smart enough to work mentally. Or too old to keep working, but some how still alive. I do like the idea of a singlepayer health care system such as is working in hundreds of other countries for decades.

I also want a government that keeps greedy corporations from  taking dangerous shortcuts that put the health of our citizens at risk.

socially, the government shouldn't regulate anything, only provide services. fiscally, the government should get out of the way, and not be allowed to take bribes(donations) from companies.

ZOMG Moo!
ericools
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 80



View Profile
May 15, 2011, 10:42:06 PM
 #23

Because of all the hubub here over ron paul, i decided to look a bit closer at him.
I again decided he is not the canidate for me. I'm very much a fiscal conservative, love the idea of a smaller government.. but I personally do believe it is the place of government to take care of those who are incapable of taking care of themselves. I also like the idea of regulation based on scientific fact (how much radium is bad for you in the drinking water?)

Most of his message i agree with, get off the back of citizens... but I'll never support some one who would take the wheelchair out from under some one who had no family, no way to work physically, and not smart enough to work mentally. Or too old to keep working, but some how still alive. I do like the idea of a singlepayer health care system such as is working in hundreds of other countries for decades.

I also want a government that keeps greedy corporations from  taking dangerous shortcuts that put the health of our citizens at risk.

socially, the government shouldn't regulate anything, only provide services. fiscally, the government should get out of the way, and not be allowed to take bribes(donations) from companies.

The problem with allowing the government to provide these support systems is that the way they are implemented ends up being determined by it's profitability for someone.  In theory these programs are great ideas, and I am not all against them, there are a lot of people who really need them.  I don't however think we are doing ourselves a favor by making this the job of the federal government.  We currently have about 12% of the US population on food stamps. 

Last year I hired someone for some part time help who after one week of working for me quit because he determined that he could live better collecting from the government if he didn't have the job.  I see that sort of thing happen all the time.  I know people who live off the system contributing nothing, the only real disabilities they have being stupid and or lazy.  I also know some hardworking people who desperately need assistance but do not qualify for it. 

I have a friend who gets 65% of his paycheck taken away by the government for child support.  The money goes to an ex-girlfriend who makes many times more money than him.  Hopelessly in debt had to quit school to work, no realistic chance of paying rent (or being able to travel to see his kids) much less paying off the debt, and to top it off if he gets pulled over he'll get arrested for it being over due, sit in jail miss work and maybe loose his job and have to start all over.  This benefits no one.  We incur massive expenses as tax payers funding this beating down of someone who if we left them alone would probably be able to support his family on his own.
- and personally I have a great deal of admiration for this persons restraint, if it was me I probably would have gone out shooting by now....

My argument being that well the federal government messing in domestic and economic affairs helps many people I think there are many more people who would not need help if they would stay out of it. 

Also when looking at Ron Paul's stance on issues you should notice what government he is talking about.  Because often he is talking about what the federal government does since that is the government he is representing his constituents in.  Our constitution clearly divides the powers of the state and federal governments for good reason.


Nesetalis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420



View Profile
May 15, 2011, 11:29:13 PM
 #24

the bit about child support, that strikes me more of a case for personal responsibility than a mark against child support. you bring a child in to the world, you take care of it, or pay through the teeth for some one else to do it. :p

But for me, government isnt supposed to be some monolithic entity.. its supposed to be a community project.
free market works for some things, but other things you cant leave to profitability. And saying the federal government should be about profit is missing the point entirely. Admitedly, the government has missed the point for millennia :p

Government in my eyes should be what we as a society decide to take care of. The roads for instance, we all need them, we all want to use them, we all want to drive/ride on them.. and as a whole we all take care of them by paying for them through taxes.
Taking care of the infirm is something else i see our society as a whole should do. At any moment my family could die, and i could end up crippled from the neck down. My current line of work, i would be unable to do. I would starve without some sort of assistance.
I believe every person should have that safty net. And whether the current social security/medicare/crappy public insurance works or not is aside the point... Ron Paul hasnt offered a better replacement, hes only said do away with it.

ZOMG Moo!
ericools
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 80



View Profile
May 16, 2011, 01:11:36 AM
 #25

the bit about child support, that strikes me more of a case for personal responsibility than a mark against child support. you bring a child in to the world, you take care of it, or pay through the teeth for some one else to do it. :p

But for me, government isnt supposed to be some monolithic entity.. its supposed to be a community project.
free market works for some things, but other things you cant leave to profitability. And saying the federal government should be about profit is missing the point entirely. Admitedly, the government has missed the point for millennia :p

Government in my eyes should be what we as a society decide to take care of. The roads for instance, we all need them, we all want to use them, we all want to drive/ride on them.. and as a whole we all take care of them by paying for them through taxes.
Taking care of the infirm is something else i see our society as a whole should do. At any moment my family could die, and i could end up crippled from the neck down. My current line of work, i would be unable to do. I would starve without some sort of assistance.
I believe every person should have that safty net. And whether the current social security/medicare/crappy public insurance works or not is aside the point... Ron Paul hasnt offered a better replacement, hes only said do away with it.

Well the point is he could pay for it if it wasn't disgustingly unfair, and it's hard to get to be the one to take care of it when you can't feed yourself.

I wasn't saying it should be about profit.  I was saying that government regulations especially at the national level are strongly influenced by privet interest that seek to profit from them.  I am fine with the safety net concept when needed, but sadly how it sounds on paper and how it works are not the same. 

Well insurance is a bet against the odds.  Chances are you will loose and if you play it on a large enough scale you will always loose.  If that was not the case no one would bother to sell it, and I think especially in the case of medical expenses without insurance absurdly profitable pill pushers would be forced to sell their product at a reasonable mark up.  I could go on about that for a long time and probably drum up 50 new things to debate but I think whether it works or not is a valid point, and I am not convinced it will ever work while it's being government run.  I think it should be non-profit.  I think all publicly funded medical research should not be allowed to be patented and should be freely available to everyone.  As for the social security I think we should remove the government drain on our economy so people can keep more of their money and remove government manipulation of interest rates so people can save that money and have their own safety net so we don't have to bail everyone out.  We should have something for the people who really need it, but if we ever want it to work right we have to nudge people in the direction of thinking about their own future.  We have far to many people who think its fine if they live pay check to pay check because when they run out they can just suck some off the state for a while.  Well that money isn't really there, the government doesn't have it.  It's just covering personal debt with public dept and than is not better.  It's one thing for me to cover my friends lunch when I have some to spare, but I wouldn't take out a loan to do it.

Nesetalis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420



View Profile
May 16, 2011, 03:00:53 AM
 #26

yes, people run their own safty nets, because thats what everyone does instead of buying a 60 inch big screen TV...
not to mention that 1 year old with downs syndrome and idiot parents who abandon it. What sort of saftynet do you suggest for that?

Realistically.. Insurance is a terrible idea, I was not talking about insurance atleast not directly, i did mention the terrible government insurance idea in passing, but i do not agree with it. It should from the start have been an implementation of single payer health care, regulated by the government, and paid for out of a new tax. Or perhaps by defunding and disolving all the 'departments' that have cropped up in the past 30 years.
No matter what any of the talking heads try to preach about socialized medicine.. it works. Just because our closest neighbors havnt gotten it right doesn't mean we can't, so don't bother mentioning Canada's terrible system or the UK's.

ZOMG Moo!
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 16, 2011, 03:32:53 AM
 #27

No matter what any of the talking heads try to preach about socialized medicine.. it works. Just because our closest neighbors havnt gotten it right doesn't mean we can't, so don't bother mentioning Canada's terrible system or the UK's.

My problem isn't with the idea of socialized medicine per se.  My problem is with advancements in medicine.  Sure, there are some nationalized social care that does a respectable job overall, but every last one of them depends upon the innovation in medical science in order to improve.  And every last company that does the research depends upon the US's semi-open market in order to pay for that research.  Government cannot replicate market based innovation, no matter what they think they can do.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Nesetalis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420



View Profile
May 16, 2011, 03:50:21 AM
 #28

so, your solution.. is to let the average american citizens suffer, unable to aford basic health care let alone these new technologies? don't you think AMERICA should benefit from these technologies first? not joe schmoe in socialized healthcare land.

This is my problem with it, Americans, all of us, should benefit from advances in science.. not just the rich few.. and everyone else in the world with a sane health care system.

ZOMG Moo!
nuggets4all
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 46



View Profile
May 16, 2011, 03:54:17 AM
 #29

One way to put BTC to work on behalf of a Ron Paul presidency would be to give micro-rewards to people who do local activism in support of Ron Paul.

Say you want to see 2,000 fliers distributed at a major event. You could offer a reward to anyone who completes this task and shares video and photographic coverage of their activism with the community.. The sky's the limit for how this could be implemented, literally; anyone who paid attention to the 2008 campaign will likely remember the Ron Paul blimp. The blimp was funded by small donations and it was all organized by individuals outside of the official campaign.

I've done a lot of activism with Young Americans for Liberty, an organization that began as Students for Ron Paul in 2007. Bitcoin has been pretty popular within the liberty movement, and I think it has a lot of potential to facilite political activism.

I support Ron Paul because he has the best understanding of the problems the US faces. As a veteran of the war in Afghanistan it is my opinion that he is the only politician with the guts to do what is right and end our ridiculous wars. Ron Paul represents the kind of economic freedom this community is all about, and, as President, would ensure revolutionary ideas like Bitcoin have a free and open market to thrive in.

For Peace and Prosperity, Ron Paul 2012.

1FmU8DBU7CpM4jqNMeMvwtVBKjuyyDLWss
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 16, 2011, 07:30:59 PM
 #30

so, your solution.. is to let the average american citizens suffer, unable to aford basic health care let alone these new technologies? don't you think AMERICA should benefit from these technologies first? not joe schmoe in socialized healthcare land.

I think you don't really understand what you advocate.  What defines "basic health care"?  Health care is an abstract concept, a collective service provided in small portions and in different ways by many different people.  None of whom are obligated to do anything in particular for anyone in particular.  If "basic health care" were to be defined as whatever form of health care that was available to the richest person 50 years ago, I'd be for that form of socialized medicine, because whatever knowledge hasn't been updated in 50 years of medical science is dirt cheap.  I do agree that there is a social problem with public health, but I don't agree that there is an ideal solution.
Quote
This is my problem with it, Americans, all of us, should benefit from advances in science.. not just the rich few.. and everyone else in the world with a sane health care system.
The rich always benefit from scientific advances before the rest, medicine notwithstanding.  That is the way of the world.  Do you think that you would have your smartphone today unless overpaid Wall Street wonks were willing to pay way too much for crappy wireless cell service in the 1980's?


"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
caveden
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106



View Profile
May 16, 2011, 07:53:54 PM
 #31

but I'll never support some one who would take the wheelchair out from under some one

It is not about taking the weelchair out from under anyone. No one wants that.
It's all about stop pointing a gun at someone who doesn't want to put a weelchair under someone else.

A nice short presentation for you to understand the principles better: http://www.isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-english.swf

18rZYyWcafwD86xvLrfuxWG5xEMMWUtVkL
Nesetalis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420



View Profile
May 16, 2011, 11:11:57 PM
 #32

You're missing the point creighto.
 Only other countries and the rich few benefit from america's medical science. Whether this is the way of the world or not, doesn't really matter. That is how it is, and I would rather americans benefit from our own damn research and money spent. Our insurance, our insane prices of drugs, our incentives and tax breaks... those pay for lowerclass joe schmoe in Switzerland to have that new technology decades before its available to lower-middleclass americans... if they could ever aford it.
Thats great for joe schmoe, but certainly no good for us.

as for basic health care, that is any healthcare required for the wellbeing of a person. This excludes plastic surgery unless heavily disfigured in an accident and so forth.

as for caveden. Yes, yes it is about taking the wheelchair out from under someone. if Ron Paul has no plans to implement anything to replace social security and medicare, then when/if he gutted it, those people who depend upon it to survive, will be screwed. Sure the few assholes who try to take advantage of the system will be forced to go out and work for a living, thats all well and good, but the few who /cant/ go out and get a job.. will likely die from starvation, lack of care, or live in poverty from the scraps of donation.

I never want to see 1920s poverty. If you really think gutting social security and not replacing it with anything better.. is a good idea, you should be ashamed of yourself for what you want to put so many americans through.

and again, as for the rest of the government, we don't need most of it,  defense can be cut way back, most of the damn departments can be cut way back.. secret projects, anti-freespeech idiots like the ICE shit, the lobbies to promote buisnesses at the cost of americans... that can all go to hell. But i would pay far greater taxes for the well being of american citizens... if i knew my taxes weren't being used to curtail my rights.

ZOMG Moo!
cloud9
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
May 16, 2011, 11:59:00 PM
 #33

Can't you donate cash to a campaign.  If you fill out the same paperwork whats the difference.  Though I do see your point.

For all practical purposes, you cannot donate cash to a campaign.  Bitcoin makes the autonomy thing even worse for campaign finance tracking, because even if there were a bitcoin donate button that provided you a newly generated bitcoin address after you identified yourself, those addresses never die.  So if an opponent wanted to set you up for a campaign lawsuit, all he would have to do is find one of these addresses and send too much money to it.  The campaign couldn't keep it, and they can't really return it either.  Creates a huge legal mess, so It's just easier (for now) to ignore Bitcoin for campaign finances.  It'll come someday.  But not yet.

Bitcoin's anonymous properties should not be overestimated.  Take the second post in this thread of davout for example, his donation address is 1MvU1veceyyaTkrX4uajKT61fAykoUq1VT , now http://blockexplorer.com/address/1MvU1veceyyaTkrX4uajKT61fAykoUq1VT shows which address donated to him which amount.  If he would have to account for every donation, maybe with an accompanying database linking to each of his receiving addresses, he could easily return an unknown/unmatched received amount (which amount is not recorded as an identified pledge in his database) to the sender's address.

Bitcoin is pseudonymous if you choose it to be.  The whole link/chain of addresses sending/receiving however will never be pseudonymous and some links will not be pseudonymous, revealing identity now and again.

Disclaimer:  Postings of Cloud9 are only individual views of opinion and/or musings and/or hypothesisses.  On a non-authoritative, peer-to-peer public forum, you do not need permission from Cloud9 to derive your own conclusions or opinions, so please do.  Calculations and assumptions to be verified.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 17, 2011, 12:06:57 AM
 #34

You're missing the point creighto.
No, I'm not.  I understand your position, perhaps better than you do.  It's just not a possibility.  It's a waste of effort and resources to impose any kind of "fairness" upon any marketplace.  We couldn't keep the advances in medical science within the US if we wanted to.
Quote
Only other countries and the rich few benefit from america's medical science.
Provablely false.  I am an American, and I am not rich.  I have a genetic disease that killed my grandmother at 36, whereas I can expect to live till at least 70.  This would not be possible for me if middle class Americans did not benefit from private party medical research paid for by the sick wealthy.
Quote
Whether this is the way of the world or not, doesn't really matter. That is how it is, and I would rather americans benefit from our own damn research and money spent. Our insurance, our insane prices of drugs, our incentives and tax breaks... those pay for lowerclass joe schmoe in Switzerland to have that new technology decades before its available to lower-middleclass americans... if they could ever aford it.
Again, provablely false.  The lower class Swiss could only possiblely have access to said medical care if his government would pay for it, and they wouldn't pay for it until after the private party research firm could do the research.  It's true that socialized medicine doesn't actually advance on it's own, but it's not true that Americans do not have access to that same medical care.  It's just that we are the only market left in the world that is still willing to bear the costs.
Quote

as for basic health care, that is any healthcare required for the wellbeing of a person. This excludes plastic surgery unless heavily disfigured in an accident and so forth.
And who gets to decide this then?  Do you really think that plastic surgery or botox won't be required for the "well being" of far too many?
Quote
as for caveden. Yes, yes it is about taking the wheelchair out from under someone. if Ron Paul has no plans to implement anything to replace social security and medicare, then when/if he gutted it, those people who depend upon it to survive, will be screwed. Sure the few assholes who try to take advantage of the system will be forced to go out and work for a living, thats all well and good, but the few who /cant/ go out and get a job.. will likely die from starvation, lack of care, or live in poverty from the scraps of donation.
Also provably not true.  There were social safety nets prior to the new deal, they just were not paid for with taxes.  They were paid for by appealing to the 'success' guilt of wealthy and middle class Americans.  Often it was called "church".
Quote
I never want to see 1920s poverty. If you really think gutting social security and not replacing it with anything better.. is a good idea, you should be ashamed of yourself for what you want to put so many americans through.
Then don't advocate for systems that contribute to poverty.  I'm sure that you don't believe this is what you are doing, but the most significant contributor to poverty in the 1920's was government intervention into the marketplace.
Quote
and again, as for the rest of the government, we don't need most of it,  defense can be cut way back, most of the damn departments can be cut way back.. secret projects, anti-freespeech idiots like the ICE shit, the lobbies to promote buisnesses at the cost of americans... that can all go to hell. But i would pay far greater taxes for the well being of american citizens... if i knew my taxes weren't being used to curtail my rights.

Then you should support Ron Paul in everything that he does.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 17, 2011, 12:09:55 AM
 #35

Can't you donate cash to a campaign.  If you fill out the same paperwork whats the difference.  Though I do see your point.

For all practical purposes, you cannot donate cash to a campaign.  Bitcoin makes the autonomy thing even worse for campaign finance tracking, because even if there were a bitcoin donate button that provided you a newly generated bitcoin address after you identified yourself, those addresses never die.  So if an opponent wanted to set you up for a campaign lawsuit, all he would have to do is find one of these addresses and send too much money to it.  The campaign couldn't keep it, and they can't really return it either.  Creates a huge legal mess, so It's just easier (for now) to ignore Bitcoin for campaign finances.  It'll come someday.  But not yet.

Bitcoin's anonymous properties should not be overestimated.  Take the second post in this thread of davout for example, his donation address is 1MvU1veceyyaTkrX4uajKT61fAykoUq1VT , now http://blockexplorer.com/address/1MvU1veceyyaTkrX4uajKT61fAykoUq1VT shows which address donated to him which amount.  If he would have to account for every donation, maybe with an accompanying database linking to each of his receiving addresses, he could easily return an unknown/unmatched received amount (which amount is not recorded as an identified pledge in his database) to the sender's address.

Bitcoin is pseudonymous if you choose it to be.  The whole link/chain of addresses sending/receiving however will never be pseudonymous and some links will not be pseudonymous, revealing identity now and again.

You entirely missed my point.  It doesn't even matter if Bitcoin is anonymous or not, only that it's perceived to be.  The campaign can't take the risk that they could be challenged on grounds of campaign finance laws.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Nesetalis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420



View Profile
May 17, 2011, 12:58:29 AM
 #36

Only other countries and the rich few benefit from america's medical science.
Provablely false.  I am an American, and I am not rich.  I have a genetic disease that killed my grandmother at 36, whereas I can expect to live till at least 70.  This would not be possible for me if middle class Americans did not benefit from private party medical research paid for by the sick wealthy.

Just because you have a disease that doesnt incapacitate you, does not prove it false. There are thousands of citizens who are incapable of helping themselves, supporting themselves, or even thinking at an adult level. How do you propose some one with severe downs syndrome and no family to speak of... survive without government support? Do you have an answer? Honestly? If your answer is just to let them die in the streets... then please, get the fuck out of my country you heartless bastard. If you do have an answer, maybe you should supply it to ron paul, since he hasn't even mentioned one.

Again, provablely false.  The lower class Swiss could only possiblely have access to said medical care if his government would pay for it, and they wouldn't pay for it until after the private party research firm could do the research.  It's true that socialized medicine doesn't actually advance on it's own, but it's not true that Americans do not have access to that same medical care.  It's just that we are the only market left in the world that is still willing to bear the costs.

Just because the government pays for treating a medical disorder, doesnt mean that medical research comes to a stop. Sure it might slow down because they can't trample all over the citizens and take advantage of them... but If another country can pay for their citizen to undergo a treatment, so can our country. And if its our country that discovers it, i believe our country should be bettered by it. Until we have a true global society, thats always going to be the case. Since I can't go to some other country and recieve treatment.

And who gets to decide this then?  Do you really think that plastic surgery or botox won't be required for the "well being" of far too many?

And you really believe that if government controlled what the citizens could use the healthcare for... that they would allow botox? Tongue maybe you should take a look at current medicare and so forth.... since they sure as hell don't allow it now.

Also provably not true.  There were social safety nets prior to the new deal, they just were not paid for with taxes.  They were paid for by appealing to the 'success' guilt of wealthy and middle class Americans.  Often it was called "church".

Right because for thousands of years, all those poor serfs were taken care of by the church, the lords, and the merchants... before the new deal there were millions of starving people with poor health... who had no recourse. Grow up and take a look at history, there were no sunshines and roses for the people in poverty, there was no mother Teresa taking care of them in the 1920s.

Then don't advocate for systems that contribute to poverty.  I'm sure that you don't believe this is what you are doing, but the most significant contributor to poverty in the 1920's was government intervention into the marketplace.

Social security contributes to poverty? thats new. Have you ever even looked at how much you pay in to FICA? Self employed its a max of 15.30% of your income.... if you are working for some one else, its half that. If you are going poor because of 7.15% then you should probably not buy that big screen TV... And thats assuming these people in poverty HAVE A JOB TO PAY IN TO FICA. Most have only under the counter work, or no work at all... and the few who have a part time job? That 7.15% isnt the problem...

Then you should support Ron Paul in everything that he does.

right, just because he does half what i want right, but the other half would wreck the country i should vote for him... get real. Until he has a solution to this problem, i wont be voting for him.

ZOMG Moo!
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
May 17, 2011, 01:13:18 AM
 #37

Only other countries and the rich few benefit from america's medical science.
Provablely false.  I am an American, and I am not rich.  I have a genetic disease that killed my grandmother at 36, whereas I can expect to live till at least 70.  This would not be possible for me if middle class Americans did not benefit from private party medical research paid for by the sick wealthy.

Just because you have a disease that doesnt incapacitate you, does not prove it false. There are thousands of citizens who are incapable of helping themselves, supporting themselves, or even thinking at an adult level. How do you propose some one with severe downs syndrome and no family to speak of... survive without government support? Do you have an answer? Honestly?

Do you?  I was responding to your claim that Americans don't benefit, I was not claiming that anything was equitable.
Quote
If your answer is just to let them die in the streets... then please, get the fuck out of my country you heartless bastard. If you do have an answer, maybe you should supply it to ron paul, since he hasn't even mentioned one.
Why should he be obligated to fix all the problems, when the systems that are in place can't do it either?
Quote

Again, provablely false.  The lower class Swiss could only possiblely have access to said medical care if his government would pay for it, and they wouldn't pay for it until after the private party research firm could do the research.  It's true that socialized medicine doesn't actually advance on it's own, but it's not true that Americans do not have access to that same medical care.  It's just that we are the only market left in the world that is still willing to bear the costs.

Just because the government pays for treating a medical disorder, doesnt mean that medical research comes to a stop. Sure it might slow down because they can't trample all over the citizens and take advantage of them... but If another country can pay for their citizen to undergo a treatment, so can our country.
No, we can't.  The social systems are free riders, butwithout any paying riders, there is no ride.
Quote
And if its our country that discovers it, i believe our country should be bettered by it.
We are, every single time.  The fact that other nations benefit without contribution does not change that fact.
Quote
Until we have a true global society, thats always going to be the case. Since I can't go to some other country and recieve treatment.
Actually, you can.  But that's another topic that is already off-topic.
Quote
And who gets to decide this then?  Do you really think that plastic surgery or botox won't be required for the "well being" of far too many?

And you really believe that if government controlled what the citizens could use the healthcare for... that they would allow botox? Tongue
It might take a decade or two, but yes.  As soon as some socialite's self worth is brought up in a court somewhere.
Quote
maybe you should take a look at current medicare and so forth.... since they sure as hell don't allow it now.
I say that botox is chargable to Medicid Part II.  Prove me wrong.  Viagra sure is.
Quote

Also provably not true.  There were social safety nets prior to the new deal, they just were not paid for with taxes.  They were paid for by appealing to the 'success' guilt of wealthy and middle class Americans.  Often it was called "church".

Right because for thousands of years, all those poor serfs were taken care of by the church, the lords, and the merchants... before the new deal there were millions of starving people with poor health... who had no recourse. Grow up and take a look at history, there were no sunshines and roses for the people in poverty, there was no mother Teresa taking care of them in the 1920s.

Then don't advocate for systems that contribute to poverty.  I'm sure that you don't believe this is what you are doing, but the most significant contributor to poverty in the 1920's was government intervention into the marketplace.

Social security contributes to poverty? thats new.
Not really.  It's called  a "slippery slope", and was predicted before the New Deal even passed, and is true.
Quote
Have you ever even looked at how much you pay in to FICA? Self employed its a max of 15.30% of your income.... if you are working for some one else, its half that. If you are going poor because of 7.15% then you should probably not buy that big screen TV... And thats assuming these people in poverty HAVE A JOB TO PAY IN TO FICA. Most have only under the counter work, or no work at all... and the few who have a part time job? That 7.15% isnt the problem...
How much of that do you expect to get back?  I expect less than I have contributed, adjusted for inflation.  That's a loss, by definition.  Forced poverty for anyone who could have saved that same money better than the government, which is just about everyone.
Quote

Then you should support Ron Paul in everything that he does.

right, just because he does half what i want right, but the other half would wreck the country i should vote for him... get real. Until he has a solution to this problem, i wont be voting for him.

Whateer, dude.  this country was wrecked in 1971.  IT just takes that long for the momentem of an entire culture to wind down far enough to tell.  It happens to every empire.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
ericools
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 80



View Profile
May 17, 2011, 02:43:24 AM
 #38

I would like to simplify my point.

The more consolidated power is, regardless of the type of government the worse off individual interests will be.  The decision to relinquish control to a central authority should be made only with the greatest care and discretion.

All one must do is read history to know those things to be true.

caveden
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106



View Profile
May 17, 2011, 10:01:37 AM
 #39

as for caveden. Yes, yes it is about taking the wheelchair out from under someone. if Ron Paul has no plans to implement anything to replace social security and medicare, then when/if he gutted it, those people who depend upon it to survive, will be screwed. Sure the few assholes who try to take advantage of the system will be forced to go out and work for a living, thats all well and good, but the few who /cant/ go out and get a job.. will likely die from starvation, lack of care, or live in poverty from the scraps of donation.

I repeat that's not about taking anything from anyone, quite the contrary. It's about stop coercively taking people's resources. These health care state programs you mention are financed through theft. That's not only extremely unethycal as it is also counter-productive from an economical point of view.

And if you really care about helping those in greater need, you should really consider this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwTDKt_k9kQ

And in this video he doesn't even consider the future improvements that lower government spendings can cause to all, particularly the most poor.

18rZYyWcafwD86xvLrfuxWG5xEMMWUtVkL
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!