- Thread starter
- #21
Ironslave
Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2006
- Messages
- 4,107
- Points
- 38
Did you read the links I posted though? He thought most of the money would go to FEMA, and it would get wasted and not end up in the hands of those who needed it, and he was absolutely right!! Big government always gives a one size fits all handout to other government agencies, who just fuck things up.
The environment stuff is just so pointless when you consider his big policies, which he dominates on (economy he is miles ahead, also the war, health care which would satisfy most people). For one, the League of Conservative voters is a complete joke. Just because he doesn't want to waste taxpayer money to fund more government agencies to do "research" and come up with "solutions" to environmental issues (which they never do) doesn't mean he's anti environment.
For example, in one of the debates, he was asked if he would support California's proposal to pay heavier fines for those who polute. Here was his response:
"Yes, California should do what they want. When we're dealing with the environment and greenhouse gases, [it's] property rights. We neglected during the industrial revolution property rights, and governments and big corporations got together and colluded."
That seems pretty fair to me that the local and state governments regulate what occurs, instead of huge federal government programs that attempt to oversee everything in all the states with cookie cutter programs.
Did you read the forrest thinning bill?
The bill would authorize $760 million a year from fiscal 2004 to fiscal 2008. The Bureau of Land Management and the US Forest Service would have the authorization to remove vegetation that could cause or assist the spread of wildfires, disease or insect infestation
it gives more taxpayer money, and more control to government bureaucracies, the last thing they need. In fact, for the 4 years, thats over 3 BILLION dollars! would you really argue that this agency is worth the 3 billion dollars for 4 years? Especially considering the out of control national debt?
Thats the problem with the democrats, especially Obama. He supports everything that "sounds good", and doesn't have any fiscal responsibility. He promises everyone everything, and the sad thing is, I actually believe that he means it, but he has no idea about where to get the money for it. He'll either hike up taxes, or the Fed will print more money.
First, I completely agree with you about Reagan.
But as for the most progress being made with the dems, no not necessarily. Bill Clinton was president during a time when Greenspan' inflation of the money supply was prevalent, thus, sure, there was prosperity for a while. But think of it like this, if I as an individual borrow a million dollars a month for a year, I could be living large for a while. However, eventually, I'm going to have to pay it back, plus interest, and if I've wasted the money, I'm in SERIOUS trouble. Same with Clinton, it takes time for the market to adjust, but it does, and it's doing it right now. This time period was a major reason for the housing bubble which is going on now, and it just sucks because the dollar has lost so much purchasing power.
Going back further, it was on Woodrow Wilson's watch where the Federal Reserve was created. They financed his campaign greatly in 1913, and he was nothing more than a puppet for the banking organizations who could use their influence to get him elected, which they did. Anyways, many years later he said
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.
A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit.
Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation,
therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men.
We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely
controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world.
No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by
conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by
the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
From that, current chairman of the Fed, Bernanke, has admitted to economist Milton Friedman (Ron Paul supporter
) that the Fed was the reason for the cause of the Great Depression! Friedman made him realize that the Fed caused it, and Bernanke vowed not to let it happen again.One of the major reasons FDR wanted WW2 so bad was to get America out of the depression (this is another topic for another day), but FDR, a democrat, pretty well did everything but call up the Emperor of Japan and say "please attack us, thanks", in order to get America in the war. Truman, another democrat, was the one who dropped the bombs unnecessarily, which killed over a million people.
Anyways, Im getting off on a tangent, but don't think that the democrats will be better with the economy, because it's not true. Overall, I think it's kind of silly to pick apart Ron Paul's misunderstood votes on issues such as the environment, when you look at the bigger issues. Hilary voted FOR the war, and she's a democrat. Obama has voted to fund it every single time.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is what drives my reasoning also.
even typing that makes me lol 
