Thread: Ron Paul Speech on How the Government Has Gotten Way Too Powerful

Makes me bummed that he'll probably fall back into general obscurity once this election cycle is over.

He will apparently never be president, but I think he will be remembered for a long time as somebody who had really good ideas and a lot of influence. He probably paved the way for somebody like-minded to become president eventually.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

He will apparently never be president, but I think he will be remembered for a long time as somebody who had really good ideas and a lot of influence. He probably paved the way for somebody like-minded to become president eventually.

My money is on Justin Amash. Rand might be his political heir but Amash is his intellectual heir.

Ron Paul has some interesting views, and I do agree with some of them. He made a very nice speech. I like that Ron Paul is against having a large military, and that he wants to reduce the federal governments power and return that power to the states. However, I dislike his faith that a free-market economy would be best for everyone. I'm sure many people don't mind the regulations that government imposes on businesses, especially after the 2008 recession.

I'm a little surprised he has been receiving as many votes as he has been. He wants to phase out Social Security. Americans love Social Security.

Originally Posted by Caenis

Americans love Social Security.

Young Americans like myself don't. I even know DEMOCRATS my age who HAAATE our Social Security system, because they know they will never see a penny of that money.

Social Security wasn't a TERRIBLE idea, at least not until the birthrate started dropping post-Baby Boomers.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Ron Paul: Is This The End of the American Republic? May 25 2011 - YouTube



That would be a good video for chain emails. Spread the word.

You should be smart enough to look at the world around you and see what happens in countries with weak central governments.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Young Americans like myself don't. I even know DEMOCRATS my age who HAAATE our Social Security system, because they know they will never see a penny of that money.

Social Security wasn't a TERRIBLE idea, at least not until the birthrate started dropping post-Baby Boomers.

Younger people are starting to dislike SS, yes, but only because the government is running out of money to fund SS. When SS had enough money, who complained? SS saved many people when it was created in the Great Depression. People died much younger back then too, so the government didn't need to provide for people as long. Life expectancy has increased by 17 years since 1935 (to 78.7)--that's a lot of extra money to give out. The US has been trying to solve the issue for years, but has been dragging its feet. SS can be made to be sustainable. However, the rich and groups like AARP have been doing a lot of lobbying to prevent much progress from being made.

Did you realize that everyone can collect SS? It's unnecessary for most high-income individuals to receive SS. Also, people only needs to pay into SS for the first $106,000 that they make yearly. Those making over $106,000 pay a flat rate of about $6,500 into SS annually. There are easy ways to fix the issue, but no one has taken the important steps yet. Or they could bump the SS tax up a few percentage points! From 12.4% to 15% would almost entirely solve the problem. Here are a few more ways to make SS sustainable.

Originally Posted by Supernova

You should be smart enough to look at the world around you and see what happens in countries with weak central governments.

Tell me about them.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Tell me about them.

Hmm. Well, I suppose the country that came to mind was Afghanistan, which is largely under control of an extremist religious group. The thing is, no matter what your libertarian ideals lay out, when you create a power vacuum someone is going to fill it. I'd much rather it be officials who at the very least are meant to be accountable to me and my fellow citizens.

Minimal government isn't the same thing as no government... it sounds like you're talking about anarchy, which is unsustainable for the reason you give. But libertarianism isn't anarchism.

That reminds me on a policy debate I negated on the resolution "American citizens should view anarchy as a valid political idealogy", and the affirmative defined anarchy as libertarianism. Boy, did I call abuse on that.

Although I don't really consider myself a libertarian or a dedicated supporter of Ron Paul, I do like many of the ideas he has for the country.

Sorry to be off-topic but I didn't want to create yet another Ron Paul thread.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

He will apparently never be president

The old guy's still kicking. :]

Originally Posted by Xei

Minimal government isn't the same thing as no government... it sounds like you're talking about anarchy, which is unsustainable for the reason you give. But libertarianism isn't anarchism.

Last I checked, Afghanistan doesn't lack a government.