Ron Paul - on the rise?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Nov 10 2007, 10:10 PM) [snapback]537908[/snapback]</div>

Many do, in the form of IRAs. But they lack the buying power to obtain more than a microscopic piece of the company. The lion's share of the wealth their labor produces still goes to the investors.

It's interesting that while conservative economists reject Karl Marx's predictions for the future of capitalism and his recipes for fixing social ills, virtually all economists (and all mainstream ones) accept his analysis of the actual functioning of capitalism. And the trap that workers are in is clear from that analysis.

It's just a question of whether or not you feel that workers have a right to the value their labor produces. (Though admittedly, how to make the needed changes is a thorny question, and one that Marx got wrong.)

As far as "full-scale revolution," there are at least three kinds of revolution: The violent kind that the United States and Russia had; democratic revolution via the electoral process (which Marx predicted would happen in the U.S.) but which at present lacks popular support; and revolution via nonviolent resistance of the sort that toppled the iron curtain. Of those, only the violent kind is bad.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 11 2007, 02:24 PM) [snapback]538000[/snapback]</div>

Well. In companies where unions(like the car industries) have a say and have a piece of the action, their "benefits" are part of(not all mind you) the problem in terms of the companies' viability.

I have an idea about making it fair for workers. How about a law that says, the top guy(the ceo most of the time) can not make more than 100x the lowest paid guy including stock options etc..

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Nov 11 2007, 01:43 PM) [snapback]538049[/snapback]</div>

That would be an improvement, but ten times would be a lot more just. In a unionized company, 100 times would still be several million dollars for the CEO. Every year. Nobody is actually worth several million dollars a year.

If the lowest paid gets $30,000 per year, the CEO should be limited to $300,000 (including all benefits, stock options, retirement pension contributions, etc.) and even that is a colossal amount of money.

Nowadays, CEOs get millions per year even when the company loses money or goes bankrupt.

But now we're on an entirely different subject, because CEO salaries, while obscene, are a separate issue from whether investors or workers own and control a company.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 11 2007, 07:32 PM) [snapback]538111[/snapback]</div>

Well if a CEO could create a business model in which he could get his lowest paid worker 100k/ year, then I would have no doubt that his workers wouldn't mind if he made 10 mill./year. They probably wouldn't mind if he made more, but because of my law, he couldn't.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Nov 12 2007, 12:07 AM) [snapback]538228[/snapback]</div>

That's fine if you make the company loads of money. But for every "good" ceo there are many ceo's where the company lost loads of money, yet they walk away with hundreds of millions(ie the golden parachute). More recently there are the Countrywide and the Citibank ceo. If the companies crash on their watch, they certainly shouldn't get bonus's.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Nov 10 2007, 10:10 PM) [snapback]537908[/snapback]</div>

Remember what happened to Enron's employees? They lost both their jobs and their investment in the company at the same time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Nov 12 2007, 09:00 PM) [snapback]538655[/snapback]</div>

Sorry that company was raping california. Most of the employees might have not been in the know about Enron's crimes, but their participation in the company still hurt california and many people. Just bad luck in working for a corporation more criminal than average.

I'm sure when the deathstar blew up there were some janitors that died. They probably didn't deserve it, but they sure as hell kept that evil machinery clean.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Nov 12 2007, 06:15 PM) [snapback]538665[/snapback]</div>

I did not like Enron any more than you did. However, many of its employees got hurt much worse than any of us Californians.

Please note that I only wrote that example to illustrate just how financially devastating it can be to put all of one's eggs in one basket.

 

To get back a little on topic I now fully support Dr. Ron Paul. When I first seen him on that first debate a while back I thought to myself this guy would be a great president but I kind of knew that he wont make it. But recently hearing more and more about him I think he might actually have a chance. If Dr. Paul can actually follow through on his word ( which by his record he will ) he will really make America a better place to live. We desperately need a guy like this that will follow the constitution to the letter.

I was not going to vote next year because the other candidates have no clue on whats going on or how to fix anything. Dr. Ron Paul has changed my mind. I will vote next year as long as he is on the ballet. If he is not I might just go vote anyway and write his name in.

I have researched many of the candidates and also tried to find the right one for me by filling out the candidate calculator at http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html

For me Dr. Ron Paul was the perfect match followed by Mike Gravel. Gravel might be my backup if Paul doesn't make it but I will have to research him a little more.

If you want to live in a free country vote Dr. Ron Paul.
If you plan on voting for someone else please take an hour of your time to watch the video below. It might just change your mind. Don't have an hour? Just watch a little bit of it. I'm sure you will find that Dr. Ron Paul knows what he is talking about. Or do a google video search and find some of his debate clips or clips of him explaining on why he is running for President.
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?d...641387650067898

 

Agree with everything said in the previous post. That video is a great way to get to know Ron Paul if you can spare the time.

Some may say... 'He doesn't stand a chance, my vote will be wasted'. But I feel that IF you have the opportunity to vote for what you truly believe in, you should take it no matter what. If you don't, see Benjamin Franklin's quote in the post above...

 

If Ron Paul doesn't win the Republican nomination you can always vote Libertarian.

 

Ron Paul is a joke, and I'm not laughing. He has no chance, none, and if you want to see change, you will have to vote Demorat. Er, Democrat. Not that I am a fan of the Demorats. Nor am I a fan of the Republican'ts. To my jaded eyes, the winner has been chosen,and it's just a waste of time, this whole process. It is set up to make us feel as if our single vote means something, when really, the election is bought and paid for by the special interest groups.

Sure, laugh, mock, just write me off. But the evidence is overwhelming. We have had the same two families in office for almost twenty years now. And unless something changes in the next year, that 'tradition' will continue.

It's a freaking shame, really. Too bad that we once had a free country. I wonder how this era will get written up in the history books.

If we even have them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Nov 13 2007, 02:43 AM) [snapback]538778[/snapback]</div>

Hard to argue with pretty much everything you said, however Ron Paul is no joke. The system is.

That being said, I am riding this one into the ground regardless. It's pretty easy to sit back and complain about nothing changing while doing nothing to change it. It's much harder to actually get off your a$$ and at least try and make a difference. If it's all in vein, at least I know I didn't contribute to the madness.

This is the kind of attitude that has led us so far astray. Nobody is willing to lift a finger to do anything for themselves. Everyone wants something for nothing and nobody is willing to sacrifice anything except their own moral values for the sake of the status quot.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Nov 12 2007, 11:43 PM) [snapback]538778[/snapback]</div>

Yep. Absolutely true!

As for Ron Paul, he may have a voting record consistent with his stated views, but that's a far cry from being able to keep his campaign promises. The president has a lot of power, but without the cooperation of Congress he can do very little. Several people on this thread seem to believe that if he were just elected, he would solve everything. This sort of Messianic idolization would be very scary if the guy had a chance.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Nov 13 2007, 12:12 PM) [snapback]538930[/snapback]</div>

I don't believe people are under the impression that Ron Paul has the ability to fix everything on his own, but getting the best possible person in office is a start. I am pretty sure that everyone is aware of our own checks and balances, but at least one voice of reason is better than what we have now, or what we would have with any other candidate IMO.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(steve-o @ Nov 13 2007, 09:21 AM) [snapback]538935[/snapback]</div>

I agree that getting a voice of reason into the presidency would be an excellent thing. However, I do not share your view that Ron Paul is a voice of reason. I think he's a nut job. And his pandering to the xenophobes and neo-nazis over the immigration issue strengthens my view on this. I think the libertarian view would be freedom of personal movement.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(steve-o @ Nov 13 2007, 11:00 AM) [snapback]538922[/snapback]</div>

I don't want anything for anything. I have personally sacrificed a lot for my country. I have served in the NAVY, I have done my part. And I continue to do so, by helping when I can, where I can. I vote. But that does not mean I am blind to the corrupt system.

I can see with both eyes, hear with both ears, feel with both hands. And what I see, hear, and feel, is that this country went over the cliff, and is hurtling to the abyss below.

If you have the means, check back here in the year 2050. I personally guarantee that the United States, as we know this country today, will not be a country then. I predict that at least California will be it's own country; that Texas and Alaska will have split off on their own as well, and that there will be discord and a general apathy with what is left of the country.

Texas will leave, when it becomes clear that the immigrant problem it suffers with is overwhelming, and it's far easier to deal with the problem sans intervention from the government. Alaska will leave, tired of being looked over, and when it decides to fully utilize its rich oil reserves, and comes to the conclusion that they don't need the USA as much as it (will) need them.

And California? It's on the way to independence right now. The state already has the third largest economy in the world, (I think it's the third), and differs strongly with the government on stem cell research, the environment, and drug laws such as marijuana being illegal. It's just a matter of twenty years, tops, till the state leaves to form it's own nation.

And in all of this, I see the public, the large and American Idol watching public, just sitting there, doing nothing, and that is why I see Ron Paul, and his kind, as a joke. I admire the tenacity of mounting what will be a losing campaign, but it's hard not to laugh at the situation.

Your view may differ, and that is fine. I'm just a crazy old preacher, with a cat on his lap that does not have a tail.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(steve-o @ Nov 9 2007, 10:38 AM) [snapback]537250[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for providing the link. I read it and have now figured out who I am definitely not voting for. After Dubya has so successfully deteriorated the foundation of this great nation with all his signing statements and what not, electing this guy is a certain recipe for the final destruction of the great nation of the United States of America as it was known up to and including the 20th century.