Ron Paul: No Federal Financial Aid for Tornado Victims

• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2012-03-05 12:38

  Quote from Skye;796667:

  You don't need to carry that over into tonight then, please.
  
  But wow. I only glanced at this earlier, but now that I've read it, I'm just blown away. The government is supposed to help the people. That's why it was made.

  
  
  Let me go into a bit more detail then.
  
  
  Some people don't understand, freedom is a trade off, we trade part of our freedom in exchange for the benefit of society. For example, we promise not to steal from others or not to harm another, in exchange we can use services society provides such as market variety and security of our own property. With that understood, you have to ask yourself this: How much freedom are you willing to give up in exchange for the benefit because that is the true nature of the issue regarding individual liberty. People like Ron Paul and I prefer less regulation from government and more freedom for ourselves, but the trade off is of course if we had our way government will also provide less benefit. That means when something bad happens to you, government won't help you as much.
  
  
  Now you can also trade more freedom for more benefit, what's happening in US right now is people are trading their freedom for security, for protection from terrorist attacks, for policies that gives them stuffs because they are a memeber of the society, in exchange however, government becomes bigger, and have more power, and more of your freedom is lost. The reason why I don't want this is because if you look ahead along this road, you will eventually reach communism. Because that's what communism is, communism is a society where you recieve absolute benefit from society but you are also slave to it, nothing is yours, everything belong to everyone.
  
  
  Now having read all that, look back at Ron Paul's stand on hurricane, do you see why I am not upset with him? Yes it is immoral not to help these people, but Ron Paul doesn't want to do it because the price for such help is more government. Which is why he has no problem with private sectors or non-governmental organizations helping these people. It's not because he is dingy or mean, he wants to help those people too, I want to help those people as well, but I don't want government to help them, that's all.
• EndlessDreams wrote on 2012-03-05 13:24

  Quote from TLCBonaparte;796783:

  
  The reason why I don't want this is because if you look ahead along this road, you will eventually reach communism. Because that's what communism is, communism is a society where you recieve absolute benefit from society but you are also slave to it, nothing is yours, everything belong to everyone.

  
  
  I don't know if you are serious or trolling anymore.
• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2012-03-05 13:36

  Quote from EndlessDreams;796800:

  I don't know if you are serious or trolling anymore.

  
  
  Same could be said about your comment.
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-03-05 16:53
  Despite generally agreeing with Ron Paul, I disagree with him here. If there's anything the government should be doing, it's focusing on health issues, scientific advancements, roads/water, providing only a necessary amount of security from outside attacks, and things like that. Basically, necessities and things we can almost unanimously agree are beneficial to the quality of life. Certainly there need to be some basic laws to prevent people from screwing each other over (stealing, murder, corporations scamming people with absurd hidden rules, etc), but I'm not sure how much more is necessary.
  
  I do completely realize that this means we're going to have to spend our money on this, and that if we don't, we're going to be put in a cage for a large portion of our lives. But honestly, it's worth it. There comes a point where certain basic needs are more important than freedom to that extremity.
• TLCBonaparte wrote on 2012-03-05 20:53

  Quote from RebeccaBlack;796872:

  Despite generally agreeing with Ron Paul, I disagree with him here. If there's anything the government should be doing, it's focusing on health issues, scientific advancements, roads/water, providing only a necessary amount of security from outside attacks, and things like that. Basically, necessities and things we can almost unanimously agree are beneficial to the quality of life. Certainly there need to be some basic laws to prevent people from screwing each other over (stealing, murder, corporations scamming people with absurd hidden rules, etc), but I'm not sure how much more is necessary.
  
  I do completely realize that this means we're going to have to spend our money on this, and that if we don't, we're going to be put in a cage for a large portion of our lives. But honestly, it's worth it. There comes a point where certain basic needs are more important than freedom to that extremity.

  
  
  
  Freedom to the extreme leads to Anarchy, no government. People use it along with communism in negative tones but honestly I see how an anarchist society can operate in a capitalistic environment, the only concern I have about it is police force and other public service such as firefighters. But let's face it, calling 911 now cost you money anyway and police force in US is brutal and thugish sometime anyway.
• Milk wrote on 2012-03-05 21:16
  Its not like Ron Paul has the power to do anything anyways. I think the cat doesn't like him just to spite you TLC.
  
  Hes talking about the policies & what they do. Not what hes doing personaly about the situation. He's not even president and its plainly obvious that he won't win the election unless some sort of mircal happens in Paul's Favor. Either way I hope that who ever gets elected president has some sort of plan for getting us out of dept. That does not include us going into WW3 with China & other countries. Because we all know that thats how America got out of dept with the british in the first place :x.
• Cynic wrote on 2012-03-05 21:27

  Quote from Milk;796955:

  Its not like Ron Paul has the power to do anything anyways. I think the cat doesn't like him just to spite you TLC.
  
  Hes talking about the policies & what they do. Not what hes doing personaly about the situation. He's not even president and its plainly obvious that he won't win the election unless some sort of mircal happens in Paul's Favor. Either way I hope that who ever gets elected president has some sort of plan for getting us out of dept. That does not include us going into WW3 with China & other countries. Because we all know that thats how America got out of dept with the british in the first place :x.

  
  
  Or the Cat actually knows what's going on and doesn't blindly follow Paul's ideals like a lost puppy.
  
  I mean seriously. If you go around saying everyone who doesn't agree with you is doing it out of spite, then I suppose the whole world has no opinions of their own and just disagrees because we all hate eachother.
• RebeccaBlack wrote on 2012-03-05 21:34

  Quote from TLCBonaparte;796949:

  Freedom to the extreme leads to Anarchy, no government. People use it along with communism in negative tones but honestly I see how an anarchist society can operate in a capitalistic environment, the only concern I have about it is police force and other public service such as firefighters. But let's face it, calling 911 now cost you money anyway and police force in US is brutal and thugish sometime anyway.

  
  Anarchy might seem like an alright idea as a concept, but realistically it would just be a disaster. Think about how bad things get already when we do have the police and all these wonderful services. Without all of that, it would just spiral out of control and people would be forced to go out for revenge if they wanted anything done. It would essentially end up in a bunch of gangs forming and fighting each other constantly. This actually already happens in some places, even with the police. It would just happen on a much larger scale with anarchy and it would be near impossible to not be pulled in in an attempt to live a safer life.
  
  If there's zero regulation for how people can hurt each other, people are going to hurt each other. It's simply unavoidable. Hoping people will clean up their communities and keep everything relatively decent is an unrealistic expectation.
  
  While a few police officers and firefighters are bad and detrimental to society, they are incredibly beneficial overall. In any large group of people, a couple bad ones are unavoidable... but things tend to get blown out of proportion. The bad ones are few and far between.
  
  I realize that emergency numbers cost money, and I'm willing to pay for that. I must've had to call 911 at least 5-10 times now in my life and I can guarantee that two of those times, someone would've been dead if I didn't. It's very nice that a number can be called anywhere in the US to prevent disaster and someone is guaranteed to be there within several minutes. I'd say it's absolutely worth the money. It's pretty inexpensive when you consider that its primary purpose is to prevent serious injury, death, and take care of other important emergencies.
• Milk wrote on 2012-03-05 21:37

  Quote from Cynic;796956:

  Or the Cat actually knows what's going on and doesn't blindly follow Paul's ideals like a lost puppy.
  
  I mean seriously. If you go around saying everyone who doesn't agree with you is doing it out of spite, then I suppose the whole world has no opinions of their own and just disagrees because we all hate eachother.

  
  
  It's obvious that he does know what he is talking about but you don't seem to realise that the Cat even refuses to acknowledge that Dr. Paul has some Ideas that his some of his polices are actually really good ideas.
  
  The cat is kind of the opposite of TLC.
  
  The cat goes out of his way just to bash ron paul and tlc refuses to admit that ron paul is not the perfect president.
• Elena wrote on 2012-03-05 22:08
  What does he mean there is no federal money. What the hell is the federal income tax, then? People who live in areas hit by disasters pay them too. :/
  
  

  "Federal money is just what they steal from the states and steal from you and me."

  
  If they're "stealing" my money already then why not use it to help.
• Scarlet wrote on 2012-03-05 22:10

  Quote from Elena;796980:

  What does he mean there is no federal money. What the hell is the federal income tax, then? People who live in areas hit by disasters pay them too. :/
  
  
  If they're "stealing" my money already then why not use it to help.

  
  
  [FONT="Times New Roman"]Cuzz the US is already in debt <.<[/FONT]
• Cynic wrote on 2012-03-05 22:12
  That's not our fault, so why should our tax money go to waste when it could be used to help people who are victims of disasters?
  
  If we have to pay taxes in the first place, I think it's fair for us to dictate where it goes.
• Elena wrote on 2012-03-05 22:17

  Quote from Scarlet;796983:

  [FONT="Times New Roman"]Cuzz the US is already in debt <.<[/FONT]

  
  
  That wasn't from something wedecided. So we're paying to do everything except help ourselves in case of an emergency?
• Scarlet wrote on 2012-03-05 22:17

  Quote from Cynic;796985:

  That's not our fault, so why should our tax money go to waste when it could be used to help people who are victims of disasters?
  
  If we have to pay taxes in the first place, I think it's fair for us to dictate where it goes.

  
  
  [FONT="Times New Roman"]"We" do decide-by voting for policymakers. Of course, when you have 50 states and Washington DC voting for separate members of the Senate and House of Representatives, you're bound to end up feeling like it wasn't our choice. And of course, these problems normally don't occur to the general public until we're like, "oh fk, we owe China like 3 trillion"[/FONT]
• Cynic wrote on 2012-03-05 22:21
  Seeing as neither my Mom nor I have ever been able to vote.. it's fair to say that it isn't really my fault. Regardless, if you want to tax people in order to pay of a debt that isn't going to be taken care of anytime soon either way, then tax people who can actually significantly contribute to paying off the debt, like rich people or churches.
  
  Taking our money and then saying "oh well lul ur american so ur obligated to pay off our debts" is a very poor excuse. Setting aside the fact that they're taxing the wrong people, we still deserve the right to financial help in situations that we have no control over. Using our tax money to pay for it shouldn't be a problem since it was our money to begin with.