Ron Paul, does he stand a chance?

[Kiroy]

Originally Posted by Soriak

Many of his views aren't really heard though, I think in many cases he's very extreme. Like how he wants to end Medicare and pretty much kill every social program in time.

You'd think with computing now adays they could write the program, plug in the numbers, and see what would happen to a state if every single social program was gone except safety (fire, police), and transportation.

On the other hand, it would be interesting to see what would happen if we went all out entitlement state.

[Banal]

Originally Posted by Soriak

Many of his views aren't really heard though, I think in many cases he's very extreme. Like how he wants to end Medicare and pretty much kill every social program in time.

As a physician, he refused to accept Medicare. You can't help but admire his commitment to his principles, even if you don't agree with his ideas. If there were more physicians like him, willing to accept the loss of income to make a stand, you'd have to think that Medicare and health insurance in general wouldn't be the bloated, inefficient piece of shit that it is today.

I don't think he's right that the market can always provide the best service, and medicine may one of those areas where the government at least needs to guarantee some minimum health coverage, but our current system is a huge mess. You have private insurance companies essentially running a for profit accounting system (can anyone really explain how modern health care fits the insurance model?) and the government not only determining prices, but also formulating specific (often ludicrous and inefficient) checklists that physicians are required to complete in order to receive reimbursement.

The point being, there are areas, like education and health care, that we can argue about what the specific role of government should be. However, you can't really argue that the current system is a joke. We're already behind the curve relative to our industrialized counterparts in education and health care. If the status quo continues, who knows how bad it will be in 10-15 years.

I'd much rather see someone who I know is principled and is willing to shake things up and make some reforms, than another insider unwilling to alienate his political base, taking the country further into the quagmire because he's worried about his approval rating.

Sorry about the Medicare bitching. It's just my pet peeve.

[chaos]

I am a staunch liberal, so left I make Al Gore look conservative. But I agree with the real Goldwater conservative philosophy, the one Reagan perverted and distorted. I would vote for this guy, tomorrow. Every other candidate is a sack of shit, every goddamn one of them, and they have been for years. Like Banal said, even if I disagree with him on some points, he has convictions and he isn't his party's bitch. He is the one who could do something about changing the course that America is on today. I really believe in this guy, but I do not believe in Americans, and so it will probably be a Clinton/Giuliani face off in 08.

[Rhaze]

ontheissues.org


anything you ever wanted to know about any of the candidates.

[torrent495]

Originally Posted by Rhaze

ontheissues.org


anything you ever wanted to know about any of the candidates.

Ron Paul is a professed libertarian that wants to ban abortion and who is also an economic protectionist? This is somewhat contradictory.

Ron Paul has about as much a chance to win the Republican nomination as Dennis Kuchinich has of winning the nomination on the Democratic side. Sorry to you true believers out there.

I am a staunch liberal, so left I make Al Gore look conservative. But I agree with the real Goldwater conservative philosophy, the one Reagan perverted and distorted.

Err, either you don't understand Al-Gore liberalism or you don't understand Goldwater conservatism. Because those two things are incompatible on pretty much all economic issues.

[Soriak]

I don't know where the myth is coming from that government is less efficient than private corporations. The US government represents 300 Million people - that kind of market power lets it dominate every negotiation it enters.

Switzerland makes it mandatory for every pharmaceutical company located here to have an emergency supply of certain drugs of theirs in Switzerland, available to the government at no charge (I believe) in case of emergencies. (like the bird flu thing - the required amount of Tamiflu was bumped up considerably)

Doesn't matter what price the free market dictates, not getting shut down is more important, hence there's no argument - we come first. This is a country of 7m people, what do you think would happen if the US made a similar demand? Instead of buying the oil of the strategic reserve, demand that companies operating in the US keep those stocks at their expense. Don't like it? 300m customers is a pretty big incentive not to pack up and leave
Those reserves could, like the current ones, be released by order of the President - yes, oil companies would have to dump their own prices, too bad. If a company didn't like that, I'm sure the remaining ones won't mind their market share.

Yes, you can take this too far and it'll start hurting business and the economy. But there's a lot of room to navigate in and certain conditions are very easy to decide upon and enforce.

But if someone tells me government is so shitty they can't run anything, I really have to wonder if said person is qualified to lead that government. Some Republicans may be tough when it comes to sending soldiers to wars, but they're awefully quick to cut and run when it comes to social issues (yes, the last part was cheap )

[voodoochile78]

Originally Posted by chaos

I am a staunch liberal, so left I make Al Gore look conservative. But I agree with the real Goldwater conservative philosophy, the one Reagan perverted and distorted. I would vote for this guy, tomorrow.

I can't tell because most of your posts are sarcastic, but if you sincerely mean this, then you're probably the most politically confused motherfucker in the country. I don't think you know what liberalism is, Goldwater conservatism is, and for that matter, I don't even think you know what you are.

Dumbshit fucking liberals looking for fringe conservative heroes to vote for are a fucking joke.

^^^ sorry for the flame, you've been pretty good on these forums, but that's how I feel about that.

[Rhaze]

Banning abortion isn't going to happen though, so check that off the list.

[Banal]

Originally Posted by Soriak

I don't know where the myth is coming from that government is less efficient than private corporations. The US government represents 300 Million people - that kind of market power lets it dominate every negotiation it enters.

Switzerland makes it mandatory for every pharmaceutical company located here to have an emergency supply of certain drugs of theirs in Switzerland, available to the government at no charge (I believe) in case of emergencies. (like the bird flu thing - the required amount of Tamiflu was bumped up considerably)

Doesn't matter what price the free market dictates, not getting shut down is more important, hence there's no argument - we come first. This is a country of 7m people, what do you think would happen if the US made a similar demand? Instead of buying the oil of the strategic reserve, demand that companies operating in the US keep those stocks at their expense. Don't like it? 300m customers is a pretty big incentive not to pack up and leave
Those reserves could, like the current ones, be released by order of the President - yes, oil companies would have to dump their own prices, too bad. If a company didn't like that, I'm sure the remaining ones won't mind their market share.

Yes, you can take this too far and it'll start hurting business and the economy. But there's a lot of room to navigate in and certain conditions are very easy to decide upon and enforce.

But if someone tells me government is so shitty they can't run anything, I really have to wonder if said person is qualified to lead that government. Some Republicans may be tough when it comes to sending soldiers to wars, but they're awefully quick to cut and run when it comes to social issues (yes, the last part was cheap )

There's a difference between the situation you describe and a situation in which the government is essentially providing a service to a significant fraction of a market, i.e. the Post Office is less efficient than FedEx.

[Soriak]

Couple figures I grabbed, sending a 0.5lbs letter (10x5x1) internationally and domestically through FedEx and USPS.

International Shipping, Beverly Hills to Switzerland:

FedEx Global Express $85.89, shipping time: 2 days
USPS Global Express Guaranteed $58, shipping time: 1-3 days


Domestic Shipping, Beverly Hills to New York City: (90210 -> 10001)
If posted on Monday:

FedEx First Overnight, $69.35
USPS Express Mail (Overnight to most Areas), $16.25
FedEx 2day, $15.10
USPS Priority Mail (2 days), $4.60


Didn't check it for packages, but in terms of letters the USPS wins hands down... this is also not a case of government subsidies, btw: the USPS finances itself.

[Banal]

Originally Posted by Soriak

Couple figures I grabbed, sending a 0.5lbs letter (10x5x1) internationally and domestically through FedEx and USPS.

International Shipping, Beverly Hills to Switzerland:

FedEx Global Express $85.89, shipping time: 2 days
USPS Global Express Guaranteed $58, shipping time: 1-3 days


Domestic Shipping, Beverly Hills to New York City: (90210 -> 10001)
If posted on Monday:

FedEx First Overnight, $69.35
USPS Express Mail (Overnight to most Areas), $16.25
FedEx 2day, $15.10
USPS Priority Mail (2 days), $4.60


Didn't check it for packages, but in terms of letters the USPS wins hands down... this is also not a case of government subsidies, btw: the USPS finances itself.

Touche. Although, obviously a comparison like this doesn't take every variable relevant to a consumer into account, like reliability or convenience. Also, the Post Office does have a government monopoly on first class mail, so that protection probably affects their ability to compete on prices in other areas. I could be wrong though; I'm no mail service expert.

[Angerz]

Originally Posted by Soriak

Couple figures I grabbed, sending a 0.5lbs letter (10x5x1) internationally and domestically through FedEx and USPS.

International Shipping, Beverly Hills to Switzerland:

FedEx Global Express $85.89, shipping time: 2 days
USPS Global Express Guaranteed $58, shipping time: 1-3 days


Domestic Shipping, Beverly Hills to New York City: (90210 -> 10001)
If posted on Monday:

FedEx First Overnight, $69.35
USPS Express Mail (Overnight to most Areas), $16.25
FedEx 2day, $15.10
USPS Priority Mail (2 days), $4.60


Didn't check it for packages, but in terms of letters the USPS wins hands down... this is also not a case of government subsidies, btw: the USPS finances itself.

I ship a lot of things internationally. We use the post office. They are not as good as UPS, FedEx, and DHL in my opinion. However they are so much cheaper, we just take the chances.

Price is not equal to quality service.

And as an aside, I'm pretty sure if you compared 6 pound packages the prices would be closer, but the post office would still win hands down. But USPS rapes pricing on document service, even domestically.

Not that this has a lot to do with anything going on here.

[Dabamf]

He's got balls, but that's gonna prevent him from ever winning. He's absolutely right about the reasons for 9/11, but not explaining it that well and going against a belief so ingrained in society is gonna ruin him. He is also so willing to admit beliefs like hating social program that that will turn mass people off too, even if they will really have no consequences if he actually got in office.

and lol @ the guy who says the government isn't less efficient than private business

[Rhaze]

Originally Posted by Dabamf

He's got balls, but that's gonna prevent him from ever winning. He's absolutely right about the reasons for 9/11, but not explaining it that well and going against a belief so ingrained in society is gonna ruin him. He is also so willing to admit beliefs like hating social program that that will turn mass people off too, even if they will really have no consequences if he actually got in office.

and lol @ the guy who says the government isn't less efficient than private business

He did a press conference the day after, explained himself, then a former CIA guy also explained it, they than offered a "reading list" to educate rudy on the issues.

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by Dabamf

and lol @ the guy who says the government isn't less efficient than private business

That'd be me - sorry for going against established dogma.

No doubt government can be inefficient, but that's entirely due to the people appointed. Get qualified individuals on the job and there's no way it can be less efficient than private business. The government doesn't operate for profit, so as long as bureaucracy is limited (may take some reform, so what) it can provide the same service for less or a better service at the same cost. Simply by virtue of not having to transfer profits to a parent company or shareholders.