Mitt Romney VS Ron Paul

[boramk]

America's constitution is still the finest in the world, and was constructed by some of the leading minds of the last couple hundred years.
If your friend couldn't afford medical insurance (medical aid), then clearly he needs to start working harder or start his own company.

America's constitution served well in the 1700's but a lot of it has no place for modern America.

AND WTF kind of logic is that? Regardless of whether or not my friend can afford it, who the f are you to say he should work harder??
What about the average American who CAN'T afford half of that, who CAN'T start their own company?

EDIT: It just comes to show how detached American Republican/Conservative/Right wingers are from reality. I guess the 15% or 40 million Americans living under the poverty line should just "work harder".

 

[JStrike]

America's constitution served well in the 1700's but a lot of it has no place for modern America.

AND WTF kind of logic is that? Regardless of whether or not my friend can afford it, who the f are you to say he should work harder??
What about the average American who CAN'T afford half of that, who CAN'T start their own company?

The same thing that should happen to the deer that cant run as fast as the rest of the heard...
I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that is Libertarianism. And this is a thread about Ron Paul, probably the most famous Libertarian in the USA

 

[copacetic]

The same thing that should happen to the deer that cant run as fast as the rest of the heard...
I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that is Libertarianism. And this is a thread about Ron Paul, probably the most famous Libertarian in the USA

It's actually more a thread about medical marijuana and the evilness of Mitt Romney...

 

[boramk]

The same thing that should happen to the deer that cant run as fast as the rest of the heard...
I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that is Libertarianism. And this is a thread about Ron Paul, probably the most famous Libertarian in the USA

So the deers left behind have the means to run faster? Is that what you believe. 40 million Americans willingly stay under poverty, are just lazy to open up Fortune 500 companies?

And I know he is, and the saddest part is he is the least bat sht crazy out of all the GOP candidates.
America is fscked.

 

[JStrike]

So the deers left behind have the means to run faster? Is that what you believe. 40 million Americans willingly stay under poverty, are just lazy to open up Fortune 500 companies?

And I know he is, and the saddest part is he is the least bat sht crazy out of all the GOP candidates.
America is fscked.

No one said they need to start Fortune 500 companies. But America has a culture of entrepreneurship, far more so than any other country.
And if some people feel like it is their responsibility to help those deer/people, then that is their right. But forcing people to help them should not be the place of the federal government.

Ron Paul is far better than the GOP candidates, but they are all far better than the DNC people

 

[Alan]

The same thing that should happen to the deer that cant run as fast as the rest of the heard...
I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that is Libertarianism. And this is a thread about Ron Paul, probably the most famous Libertarian in the USA

But we're not animals are we?

Society has a duty to help those who can't help themselves. That's not to say people have a "right" to welfare if they have the capacity to help themselves but would rather leach off society.

 

[boramk]

But we're not animals are we?

Society has a duty to help those who can't help themselves. That's not to say people have a "right" to welfare if they have the capacity to help themselves but would rather leach off society.

Not often I agree with you Alan.

I am completely against a welfare state like South Africa, but I'm also against leaving those with no means to escape poverty lying in a ditch.

I mean to say my friend, and by extension 300 million Americans should "work harder" to justify a R27000 bill to fix a finger :wtf: you have to be so detached from human emotion.

 

[JStrike]

But we're not animals are we?

Society has a duty to help those who can't help themselves. That's not to say people have a "right" to welfare if they have the capacity to help themselves but would rather leach off society.

I personally believe survival of the fittest applies to people as well.
That being said, I also believe people, who want to, should be able to help those that are struggling. But people should most certainly not be forced to help.
And even more certainly, I don't believe the Constitution makes provision for forcing people to do it on the federal level

 

[w1z4rd]

Can you show me where the Constitution provides for the Federal Government being involved in medical insurance?

The constitution is not a holy document.

 

[Nicodeamus]

The constitution is not a holy document.

It does limit the powers of federal government significantly (which is a good thing, centralization is power is always bad), if healthcare were to be socialized it has to be done at the state level, some states actually did this, including some republican states (i.e. Massachusetts where Romney was governer. )

Am I the only one who finds the spelling of Massachusetts difficult ?

 

[JStrike]

The constitution is not a holy document.

I believe the Constitution is the closest thing the world has to a holy document. How it was formulated is still incredibly thought out and has great foresight.
Sure, there have been subtle changes needed since it was written, but as a whole, it requires no major changes

 

[JStrike]

It does limit the powers of federal government significantly (which is a good thing, centralization is power is always bad), if healthcare were to be socialized it has to be done at the state level, some states actually did this, including some republican states (i.e. Massachusetts where Romney was governer. )

Am I the only one who finds the spelling of Massachusetts difficult ?

Excellently put. It is a responsibility of the states (those states whose people want mandated healthcare), or for the people themselves to get insurance. Not a responsibility of the Federal Government.
Once again, excellently put

 

[boramk]

It does limit the powers of federal government significantly (which is a good thing, centralization is power is always bad), if healthcare were to be socialized it has to be done at the state level, some states actually did this, including some republican states (i.e. Massachusetts where Romney was governer. )

Am I the only one who finds the spelling of Massachusetts difficult ?

Federal government should be limited, no arguments here. But like water and prisons, necessities like health care should not be limited whereby government expenditure in these fields are necessary. Public goods are public goods and basic economics teaches us that the markets will always fail to provide public goods and the government has to step in.

Honestly, how does giving the federal government power in healthcare hurt you or the Founding Fathers?
Billions go into war and military spending, not a peep to be heard. The same can not be said for the health of the people.

 

[w1z4rd]

I believe the Constitution is the closest thing the world has to a holy document. How it was formulated is still incredibly thought out and has great foresight.
Sure, there have been subtle changes needed since it was written, but as a whole, it requires no major changes

So well thought out that they amended it 27 times?

 

[Nicodeamus]

Federal government should be limited, no arguments here. But like water and prisons, necessities like health care should not be limited whereby government expenditure in these fields are necessary.

Water is also done at state level, the jails have a different system, it depends whether you were tried on county, state or federal level. (some states don't have country laws or county jails).

Public goods are public goods and basic economics teaches us that the markets will always fail to provide public goods and the government has to step in.

I don't know which basic economics you read, unless it is an opinion. Before healthcare was socialized in America people just didn't die... the churches the communities, the town-halls all took care of them. If you socialize Medicare it creates the incentive for insurance companies to make more profit, socialized healthcare is more expensive than private healthcare.

Honestly, how does giving the federal government power in healthcare hurt the you or the Founding Fathers?

Different states have different needs, if the federal government is to mandate a set of rules for medicare then effectively there will be an over supply on one end and an undersupply in other other end, it is bound to happen.

 

[Nicodeamus]

So well thought out that they amended it 27 times?

Which is why there is currently no function for the federal government to have a reserve, an income tax, medicare, even most of their wars are unconstitutional. However the presidents and congress just ignored the constitution blatantly in many cases.

 

[w1z4rd]

Which is why there is currently no function for the federal government to have a reserve, an income tax, medicare, even most of their wars are unconstitutional. However the presidents and congress just ignored the constitution blatantly in many cases.

sola scriptura

 

[Nicodeamus]

sola scriptura

I must be honest, I had to google what that means

 

[JStrike]

Federal government should be limited, no arguments here. But like water and prisons, necessities like health care should not be limited whereby government expenditure in these fields are necessary. Public goods are public goods and basic economics teaches us that the markets will always fail to provide public goods and the government has to step in.

Honestly, how does giving the federal government power in healthcare hurt you or the Founding Fathers?
Billions go into war and military spending, not a peep to be heard. The same can not be said for the health of the people.

Water and Prisons are exactly the sort things that are the responsibility of state governments, not federal governments

BTW I agree with you that the government should not be going into war the way it has, wasting taxpayers money. Only when both houses declare war should the USA go to war. And the last time this happened was WW2. Since then, it has been quasi unconstitutional undeclared wars by all the Dem and Rep presidents

 

[w1z4rd]

I must be honest, I had to google what that means

Normally used by people who think the bible is the infallible word of God... Im just applying it to this constitutional document