Ron Paul on Colbert

2»

Comments

  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    mammasan wrote:
    Well 9/11 is a different case. That was not a natural diseaster, but an aggressive attack on our country. In a case like that it is in the ineterst of nation security so an organization like the FBI would spearhead the investigative portion of the operation. NYC own Office of Emergency Management would spearhead rescue, recovery, and clean up.

    The reason I agree with Ron Paul is that the federal government is too slow to act and their is way to much red tape to get through to get funds distributed. With haveing these types of operations run on a more localized level, on the state level for example, the people affected have more control of the government and can mobilize to get better results. We have completely losy control of the federal government and need someone who is willing to reduce it's size and scope. Ever if that means transfering programs that where once run by the federal government down to the state level. We as voters have more control of our state level elected officials. the more localized the government to more control the electrate have and that is what we need. We need to regain control of our government.

    i would have to agree with you on that the effectiveness of many federal programs are poor ... i find the biggest issue with it is that many of these programs are led by politicians with agendas ...

    take the EPA for example - it is probably the most ineffective at what its supposed to do because a politician with specific goals dictates policy rather then public safety and concern ...

    having said that - i don't necessarily think you send the whole thing to junkyard ... it really comes down to which level of gov't is best suited to handle specific services ... in this particular example - i might side with state assuming most scenarios occur at that level ...
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    polaris wrote:
    i would have to agree with you on that the effectiveness of many federal programs are poor ... i find the biggest issue with it is that many of these programs are led by politicians with agendas ...

    take the EPA for example - it is probably the most ineffective at what its supposed to do because a politician with specific goals dictates policy rather then public safety and concern ...

    having said that - i don't necessarily think you send the whole thing to junkyard ... it really comes down to which level of gov't is best suited to handle specific services ... in this particular example - i might side with state assuming most scenarios occur at that level ...

    There are a few services that our federal government is best suited for, national defense, international trade, etc... but almost everything else can be handled at the state level.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    mammasan wrote:
    There are a few services that our federal government is best suited for, national defense, international trade, etc... but almost everything else can be handled at the state level.

    another consideration is that you don't end up with 50 states doing 50 different things ... where one state its ok to do this and that while another is not ... geo-political borders are just that ... there has to be a level of continuity ...
  • 1970RR
    1970RR Posts: 281
    polaris wrote:
    another consideration is that you don't end up with 50 states doing 50 different things ... where one state its ok to do this and that while another is not ... geo-political borders are just that ... there has to be a level of continuity ...
    As long as the citizens of each state are on board with how their state handles these matters, whats the problem if they each do it differently?
    The more localized the response, the more likely the effected people will get what they really need, rather than a federal one size fits all approach.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    1970RR wrote:
    As long as the citizens of each state are on board with how their state handles these matters, whats the problem if they each do it differently?
    The more localized the response, the more likely the effected people will get what they really need, rather than a federal one size fits all approach.

    i was referring to other issues such as abortion, civil unions, taxes, education, etc... it can become a real dividing source ...
  • 1970RR
    1970RR Posts: 281
    polaris wrote:
    i was referring to other issues such as abortion, civil unions, taxes, education, etc... it can become a real dividing source ...
    Same question, if the citizens of each state are in agreement - whats the problem?
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    1970RR wrote:
    Same question, if the citizens of each state are in agreement - whats the problem?

    I agree. Each of those subjects mentioned should be left up to each individual state.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    1970RR wrote:
    Same question, if the citizens of each state are in agreement - whats the problem?

    it can be the difference between living in canada or the us ... if tax structures change ... different social programs ... different education programs ... that lack of continuity effectively makes you different nations ... it's ok to carry a firearm in wyoming but not in idaho ... you move from one state to another and your kid now doesn't know basic algebra because it was taught at a different grade ...
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    baraka wrote:
    The above is an example of how our social programs can be improved, providing tools such as work/education programs, but it is a social program nonetheless.

    As far as charities replacing social programs, most charities are small, highly localized and ill-suited to responding to national disasters or shifting economic trends. The majority of charity funds are collected and spent locally, which means that rich communities tend to have well-funded charities, and poor communities tend to have poorly funded ones.

    That's exactly my worry with it, as well.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    The main thing for me, the government's horrible services are, imo, due to their main goal being to protect corporate interests. When they are suddenly asked to provide for the people they are supposed to protect, they appear clueless. If we elected the kind of people who have the people's interests first on their agenda then I think we would see a drastic change in the efficiency of all programs provided. Things can be fixed given proper leadership.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    The main thing for me, the government's horrible services are, imo, due to their main goal being to protect corporate interests. When they are suddenly asked to provide for the people they are supposed to protect, they appear clueless. If we elected the kind of people who have the people's interests first on their agenda then I think we would see a drastic change in the efficiency of all programs provided. Things can be fixed given proper leadership.

    The problem is to far entrenched. Like I said when the foundation of a house is shot you need to tear down the whole house.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    mammasan wrote:
    The problem is to far entrenched. Like I said when the foundation of a house is shot you need to tear down the whole house.


    I see it more like a roach infestation. Get rid of the corrupt roaches and the house is still fine. It'd be a pity to abandon a perfectly good house just because some roaches are messing it up.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    I see it more like a roach infestation. Get rid of the corrupt roaches and the house is still fine. It'd be a pity to abandon a perfectly good house just because some roaches are messing it up.

    Well at least we can both agree that there is a severe problem with our government.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • baraka
    baraka Posts: 1,268
    mammasan wrote:
    When it comes to diseaster reliefs, I'll use Katrina and 9/11 as an example, how many thousands of millions of dollars where collected through charitable organizations. How many well off individuals took the initiative, especially during Katrina, to provide aid on their own. We don't need the federal government for this. We have all been spoon fed since birth that we need the government, but the truth of the matter is that for a few exceptions we don't need the federal government or their inept and over bloated programs.

    Let's imagine that there is no federal emergency response, and that charities and private organizations are responsible for the cleanup and recovery after a natural disaster. What about the local charities? I would imagine that they would be damaged along with everything else in the area, so they wouldn't be of much help. By definition, the charity response would have to come from other communities but, again, most charities are small and tied to their local communities, and not designed to export their help. Fund raisers that happened with Katrina and 911 are always a big help. But these things usually take place a while after the fact.

    If thousands of independent, local charities from all across the nation tried to help out the victims of Hurricane Katrina, the resulting confusion, duplication of effort and the lack of a clear, overall strategy would waste much of their time and effort. In this respect, the federal government has a huge advantage over thousands of isolated, disparate charities. It can draw on deep strategic reserves and allocate them according to an organized plan. Furthermore, the operations required to fight a national disaster are far different from the ones required to fight local neighborhood problems. Small charities are not suited for these different mission requirements.

    That said, our gov't did not handle Katrina very well. Like abook mentioned, this is due to the individuals 'running the show'. Another point that comes to mind, in order for us to replace welfare with charity, our society would have to boost its charitable giving tenfold. Do you think that folks who are so bitter about social programs will turn around and happily surrender an equal amount of money to a charity?

    This is getting long, but one more point: What about the matter of accountability. Private charities are notorious for spending a large percent of their revenues on administrative costs. Also what about fraudulent charities? The federal government is held much more strictly accountable for its actions. The media can be quite relentless. Look at the heat FEMA took in the wake of Katrina. Gov't failures tend to be brought to light and focused on more by the media. And under the intense glare of the national media, reforms occurred.
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
    but the illusion of knowledge.
    ~Daniel Boorstin

    Only a life lived for others is worth living.
    ~Albert Einstein
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Ron Paul is asked about what he would have done for Katrina victims.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIzP8ONtkv8

    damn, he's good.

    i think, if he is being short-sided, it is in the fact that he doesn't acknowledge the fema players in the current field. and, i think he could at least acknowledge something like, that, in the face of an overwhelming catastrophe, like katrina, that would and could decidely call in favor of federal aid.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    baraka wrote:
    Let's imagine that there is no federal emergency response, and that charities and private organizations are responsible for the cleanup and recovery after a natural disaster. What about the local charities? I would imagine that they would be damaged along with everything else in the area, so they wouldn't be of much help. By definition, the charity response would have to come from other communities but, again, most charities are small and tied to their local communities, and not designed to export their help. Fund raisers that happened with Katrina and 911 are always a big help. But these things usually take place a while after the fact.

    If thousands of independent, local charities from all across the nation tried to help out the victims of Hurricane Katrina, the resulting confusion, duplication of effort and the lack of a clear, overall strategy would waste much of their time and effort. In this respect, the federal government has a huge advantage over thousands of isolated, disparate charities. It can draw on deep strategic reserves and allocate them according to an organized plan. Furthermore, the operations required to fight a national disaster are far different from the ones required to fight local neighborhood problems. Small charities are not suited for these different mission requirements.

    That said, our gov't did not handle Katrina very well. Like abook mentioned, this is due to the individuals 'running the show'. Another point that comes to mind, in order for us to replace welfare with charity, our society would have to boost its charitable giving tenfold. Do you think that folks who are so bitter about social programs will turn around and happily surrender an equal amount of money to a charity?

    This is getting long, but one more point: What about the matter of accountability. Private charities are notorious for spending a large percent of their revenues on administrative costs. Also what about fraudulent charities? The federal government is held much more strictly accountable for its actions. The media can be quite relentless. Look at the heat FEMA took in the wake of Katrina. Gov't failures tend to be brought to light and focused on more by the media. And under the intense glare of the national media, reforms occurred.

    Who organized American relief and charities after the tsunami in Indonesia, et al?
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    gue_barium wrote:
    Who organized American relief and charities after the tsunami in Indonesia, et al?

    A Better question would be how was diseaster relief handled prior to FEMA. As Ron Paul stated in the interview. Back in the 1960's Galvaston, TX was nearly wiped off the map. Their was no FEMA back then. The state of Texas managed the whole process on their own. The Town was rebuild along with a sea wall that is still standing strong today.

    I know that Ron Paul's ideology is not for everyone and that's fine, but I have been seeing a awfull amount of half-truths and misinformation being spread about the man by people who's candidate maybe isn't getting the attention Ron Paul is. I can understand that this being a pretty important election and all, but instead of focusing on the issues they have decided to take this route. It's a bit Karl Rove-ish if you ask me and funny how when Bush did it in both of his campaigns it was frowned upon, but the same tactic is being employed by the very same people who criticized Bush.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    mammasan wrote:
    A Better question would be how was diseaster relief handled prior to FEMA. As Ron Paul stated in the interview. Back in the 1960's Galvaston, TX was nearly wiped off the map. Their was no FEMA back then. The state of Texas managed the whole process on their own. The Town was rebuild along with a sea wall that is still standing strong today.

    I know that Ron Paul's ideology is not for everyone and that's fine, but I have been seeing a awfull amount of half-truths and misinformation being spread about the man by people who's candidate maybe isn't getting the attention Ron Paul is. I can understand that this being a pretty important election and all, but instead of focusing on the issues they have decided to take this route. It's a bit Karl Rove-ish if you ask me and funny how when Bush did it in both of his campaigns it was frowned upon, but the same tactic is being employed by the very same people who criticized Bush.

    Yeah, FEMA is unecessary. Too much government. We'll always have the national guard, if that sort of aid is needed. And the Guard can be deployed at the whim of the Governor of a State.
    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • THC
    THC Posts: 525
    that interview was pretty good. I learned a lot about Ron Paul..and I have to say...he's shot to the top of my Republican's list...(although...i'd never vote republican in the upcoming election).

    voted against Iraq and the Patriot act as a republican....at least he has a spine!
    “Kept in a small bowl, the goldfish will remain small. With more space, the fish can grow double, triple, or quadruple its size.”
    -Big Fish

Categories