User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 85

  1. #21
    Senior Member Ethereal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Guys without war or welfare how will the money circulate? The next most powerful economies or economic blocs would outstrip you in no time.
    War and welfare does NOT circulate money... it wastes money. What money that does go into war does not go back to the people, its consolidated by governments and corporations. War is funded by the taxpayer dollars, that is money from the people, and is payed off to government employees (soldiers and other logistical support) and to the those who profit off of war, namely the corporate military industrial complex. NOTHING returns to the people.

    Take for instance the current Middle-Eastern conflicts the U.S is invested in, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and soon probably Iran. The corporate media acts like we the people share in the spoils of these wars. What they don't mention is that most of the American media outlets are owned by the same corporations that engage in these illegal conflicts to begin with. For starters...

    We the people did not profit off of oil revenues.
    We the people did not profit off of missile production.
    We the people did not profit off of rebuilding contracts.
    We the people did not profit off of mercenary contracting.
    We the people did not profit off of oppressive security measures.
    We the people did not profit off of bank loans to fund these conflicts.

    None of the money, which was taken from the people, that went into these fraudulent activities has returned to the people. That is not circulation...

    How much money and lives were wasted in Vietnam in the decade of war. Now that there is peace between the countries, how much money has been made in trade with Vietnam?

    Furthermore, you are from Ireland. Ireland was a shithole during the troubles. It's only after the violence ended that it pulled out of its slump.

    Welfare is similar. Money is taken from others and given to those who are not reproducing it. This is especially true for all the money that goes to illegal immigrants, they are not taxed and do not give money back to the system. None of this is circulation, it is exploitation.

    War and welfare are not the foundations of the modern consumer economy. They are the weights that will bring it down, and it is possible for the system to collapse. Removing all these programs all at once may be unrealistic, but if they can't all be supported then what will be the consequences? Nothing is invincible...

  2. #22
    Member peterk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Ron Paul is an "antiinterventionist libertarian" which one might say is an old school republican isolationist of the 1930's. These are the people who contributed to the start of WWII by their inaction and unwilliness to become involved in europes troubles. We had to engage the world in WWI,WWII,the Cold War etc., and now this neo-isolationist Ron Paul wants to take us back to the failed policies of the past. He is a dangerous man. If we become isolationist again we will be back out there for something more serious than if we had stayed engaged with the world.

  3. #23
    Ghost Monkey Soul Vizconde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Economics and quality of life did relatively well under isolationism/noninterventions. WWI was unnecessary for US to get involved in. There probably would have been no Hitler no Nazi Germany without US involvement in WWI. US involvement in WWI did however carry over the devastation of Spanish Flu to Europe but did little for democrasy or to "end all wars" and rather caused upheval with the geopolitical and economic consequences (i.e. amoungst them the Russian Revolution with its mass killings) WWII was essentially and extension of WWI. There is support that WWII helped us get out of the Great Depression but regardless that would have ended in time. There may have been pure moral justification based on the outrage of what Hitler was doing to the Jews to get involved in the European theater but that was apparently not high on the Alias priority list because they knew about the death camp and could have bombed the fuck out of the railroads leading up to the death camps as well as the camps themselves had they chosen.

    Korea and Vietnam likewise seemed like a waste of American tax payer dollars and lives and probably would never have happened had we not instigated Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor.

    War is failed deplomacy. Thus if being antiwar is being 'isolationist' then sign me up onto the issolationist ticket.
    I redact everything I have written or will write on this forum prior to, subsequent with and or after the fact of its writing. For entertainment purposes only and not to be taken seriously nor literally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Spamtar - a strange combination of boorish drunkeness and erudite discussions, or what I call "an Irish academic"

  4. #24
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spamtar View Post
    Economics and quality of life did relatively well under isolationism/noninterventions. WWI was unnecessary for US to get involved in. There probably would have been no Hitler no Nazi Germany without WWI. WWII was essentially and extension of WWI. There is support that WWII helped us get out of the Great Depression but regardless that would have ended in time. There may have been pure moral justification based on the outrage of what Hitler was doing to the Jews to get involved in the European theater but that was apparently not high on the Alias priority list because they knew about the death camp and could have bombed the fuck out of the railroads leading up to the death camps had they chosen.
    WWII was necessary, not because it gave us a jolt economically by putting people to work, but because Hitler wanted to eventually invade America. Without our help, he could have very well took all of Europe. Hitler wanted to attack the US since the 1920's. And when an army wants unlimited expansionism, having a isolationist/nonintervention policy is retarded.

    They were even working on the "Amerika Bomber" long-range bomber planes.

  5. #25
    Ghost Monkey Soul Vizconde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    WWII was necessary, not because it gave us a jolt economically by putting people to work, but because Hitler wanted to eventually invade America. Without our help, he could have very well took all of Europe. Hitler wanted to attack the US since the 1920's. And when an army wants unlimited expansionism, having a isolationist/nonintervention policy is retarded.

    They were even working on the "Amerika Bomber" long-range missiles.
    Hitler had a lot of whacked out plans and its speculative at best what would have happened had U.S. not declared war on Germany. Germany primary goal was to take out Russia and east Europe. Hitler was a bad guy as was Stalin. The point I am making is that had U.S. not gotten involved in WWI there would have been no WWII/no Hitler/no Nazis and no death camps...this is less speculative.
    I redact everything I have written or will write on this forum prior to, subsequent with and or after the fact of its writing. For entertainment purposes only and not to be taken seriously nor literally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Spamtar - a strange combination of boorish drunkeness and erudite discussions, or what I call "an Irish academic"

  6. #26
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spamtar View Post
    Hitler had a lot of whacked out plans and its speculative at best what would have happened had U.S. not declared war on Germany. Germany primary goal was to take out Russia and east Europe. Hitler was a bad guy as was Stalin. The point I am making is that had U.S. not gotten involved in WWI there would have been no WWII/no Hitler/no Nazis and no death camps...this is less speculative.
    One nation can never rule out the possibility of being attacked at some point in the future. So isn't isolationism/noninterventionism inherently flawed?

    If one army can dominate Europe like that, it's entirely conceivable that the powers of today, which are even more militarized, could repeat that or do worse.

  7. #27
    Ghost Monkey Soul Vizconde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    One nation can never rule out the possibility of being attacked at some point in the future. So isn't isolationism/noninterventionism inherently flawed?

    If one army can dominate Europe like that, it's entirely conceivable that the powers of today, which are even more militarized, could repeat that or do worse.
    I agree but noninterventialism need not mean no foreign policy.

    Europeans had been killing each other for centuries with a general balance. The US involvement in the European conflicts may have upset that balance.

    There can be better foreign policies (i.e. preventing genocide in general and limiting war and the aberrations of war) chosing peace without appeasement instead of war. War is too easy a choice to take and too difficult a path to deviate off from.
    I redact everything I have written or will write on this forum prior to, subsequent with and or after the fact of its writing. For entertainment purposes only and not to be taken seriously nor literally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Spamtar - a strange combination of boorish drunkeness and erudite discussions, or what I call "an Irish academic"

  8. #28
    Senior Member ChildoftheProphets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    121

    Default The Prosperity of Peace and Freedom

    About the gold standard--Paul's main gripe is that the U.S. spends more than it earns, and returning to the gold standard is just his ideal way of keeping the spending and inflation in check. Changing Federal Reserve policiy and vetoing outrageously expensive bills from Congress would pretty much do the same thing.

    With less debt and inflation, U.S. citizens would have more money to save, invest, and donate as they see fit, improving the lives of all without the coercion, corruption, and inefficiency of government intervention.

    As for the current wars being waged in the Middle East, they do not generate the same economic revenues that WWII brought us for the simple fact that they do not rely on the same levels of mass-produced missiles, tanks, ships, and fighters that created the twentieth century military-industrial complex.

    Furthermore, as Spamtar pointed out, WWII would not have taken place if not for WWI, which itself came about because of European states making complicated and entangling alliances with one another.

    President Wilson stepped in to make the world "safe for democracy" (much as President Bush tried to do in the Middle East), but in turn brought America so much debt that the Federal Income Tax was implemented to pay for the war.

    What do I take from this?

    I take that a sound fiscal policy of balanced budgets and a sound foreign policy of nonintervention can together bring us the same kind of surplus and prosperity we had during the late 1990s.

    Clinton slashed the nation's defense budget while Republicans curtailed his expenditures on social programs, leading to the first decrease in deficit spending since the Truman administration, not to mention a booming economy.

    Sure, things weren't perfect, but they were a lot better than they are now!
    "In the opening and shutting of heaven's gate, are you able to play the feminine part?" -- Lao Tzu

    "For when the One Great Scorer comes
    To write against your name,
    He marks - not that you won or lost -
    But how you played the Game."
    -- Grantland Rice

    “Life is a game, boy. Life is a game that one plays according to the rules.” -- from The Catcher in the Rye

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do, and what a man can't do." -- Jack Sparrow

  9. #29
    Ghost Monkey Soul Vizconde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Some good points but as to income tax, the precurser to our modern income tax was ironically initially created to pay for the U.S. Civil War. (eliminated in 1872 but shortly thereafter revived. Such taxes as drafted were deemed unconstitutional prior to the 16th amendment which was ratified a year prior to WWI.)
    I redact everything I have written or will write on this forum prior to, subsequent with and or after the fact of its writing. For entertainment purposes only and not to be taken seriously nor literally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edgar View Post
    Spamtar - a strange combination of boorish drunkeness and erudite discussions, or what I call "an Irish academic"

  10. #30
    Senior Member ChildoftheProphets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    121

    Default

    My bad, thank you for that correction spamtar. I had remembered the correct president in office at the time, but assumed the wrong year. The tax would have been a Progressive Era reaction than to the Gilded Age and Industrial Revolution, not a fiscal reaction to the Great War.

    That of course begs the question: to what extent did big business violate the rights of the working class during the turn of the century, and what regulations and reforms did those violations warrant?
    "In the opening and shutting of heaven's gate, are you able to play the feminine part?" -- Lao Tzu

    "For when the One Great Scorer comes
    To write against your name,
    He marks - not that you won or lost -
    But how you played the Game."
    -- Grantland Rice

    “Life is a game, boy. Life is a game that one plays according to the rules.” -- from The Catcher in the Rye

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do, and what a man can't do." -- Jack Sparrow

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] What Strategy Would Win Ron Paul the Republican Nomination/Presidency
    By Vizconde in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-18-2012, 03:28 AM
  2. Bob Barr or Ron Paul?
    By 6sticks in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-28-2008, 08:42 PM
  3. Ron Paul
    By Paul3144 in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 03-06-2008, 11:14 AM
  4. Ron Paul Tea Party... will you be donating?
    By file cabinet in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 12-20-2007, 03:19 PM
  5. Ron Paul Wins Another Presidential Debate
    By FranG in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-18-2007, 12:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO