*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, October 18th, 2011 9:12am PDT - promote requested by original submitter soulmonarch.

Freudian slip at 12:34

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

Why not just cancel government entirely? Let people sort out their own problems, like Paul's first campaign manager who didn't have health insurance. The Hospital should have just kicked him to the curb and let him die like a dog. That's the way a civilized society treats people, right Dr. Paul?


Just because government doesn't do it doesn't mean your all alone. False dilemma at its finest . Who even says insurance is the best way to handle health problems? Perhaps community health cooperatives would be more successful, instead of actuaries betting against their investors to turn a profit. What if the profit was the good of your neighbors? That is one of the main reasons I hate massive government programs, it turns off the wonderful experiments that could happen to form even better solutions. When you mandate a particular way of doing things, the likely hood of change almost disappears, even if that change is for the better. One of my favorite sayings from south park is "Remember, no one answer is ever the answer". I would rather leave the fate of important things in the hands of 300 million Americans, than several politicians.


(edit, grammararar)

Will someone please consider the welfare of bankers and defense industry executives here!!!!

"Paul, a longtime critic of federal spending not authorized by the Constitution, calls for eliminating the federal Education, Commerce, Energy, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development Departments.

He also wants to abolish the Transportation Security Agency, end corporate subsidies, plus eliminate all foreign aid and spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

I noticed he wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 15% as well.

No public education, no healthcare, rich pay less taxes and get richer.

Sounds exciting.

Ron Paul Releases the ONLY Presidential Candidate Balanced Budget Proposal

I hope he wins. He is way better than most of the others. I like his plan however the devil is in the details. I guess well fine out soon enough.

So promising stuff gets you the vote?
Who here thinks that he is actually going to do all these things?
I don't get why you people are getting so excited about ANY candidate...

Or is it because $1 Trillion sounds so ridiculous it might even be true?

A short and varied list of Americans educated in public high schools before the creation, in 1980, of the Department of Education:

Steve Jobs
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Ron Paul
Warren Buffett
Toni Morrison
Carl Sagan
Ernest Hemingway
Linus Pauling
Sandra Day O'Connor
John Steinbeck
Bob Dylan
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Milton Friedman
Noam Chomsky
Oprah Winfrey
George Lucas
Jimmy Carter
Paul Newman
Amelia Earhart
Walt Disney
George Carlin
Elvis Presley
Neil Armstrong
Richard Feynman
Aaron Copland

(I could keep going, but I'm sure you get the point.)>> ^ghark:

No public education ... Sounds exciting.

>> ^ghark:

"Paul, a longtime critic of federal spending not authorized by the Constitution, calls for eliminating the federal Education, Commerce, Energy, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development Departments.
He also wants to abolish the Transportation Security Agency, end corporate subsidies, plus eliminate all foreign aid and spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
I noticed he wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 15% as well.
No public education, no healthcare, rich pay less taxes and get richer.
Sounds exciting.


It is exciting. Is there any other candidate even saying we should end corporate welfare, let alone proposing a budget doing so?

The corporate tax rate helps small business owners. Corporations pay little to no taxes now as it is. Exemptions and offshore loopholes only work for big business. And the only candidate that wants to get rid of the corrupt tax system is Paul.

No public education and no healthcare are false arguments. Our future and our health shouldn't be decided by imperial government agents living in a mansion far far away.

Everybody pays less taxes, and we all prosper.

Cutting the opportunity for middle and lower classes to get educated (and, you know, stay alive thanks to healthcare) is the BEST way to let our future be continually in the hands of rich people living in mansions far far away.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^ghark:
"Paul, a longtime critic of federal spending not authorized by the Constitution, calls for eliminating the federal Education, Commerce, Energy, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development Departments.
He also wants to abolish the Transportation Security Agency, end corporate subsidies, plus eliminate all foreign aid and spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
I noticed he wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 15% as well.
No public education, no healthcare, rich pay less taxes and get richer.
Sounds exciting.

It is exciting. Is there any other candidate even saying we should end corporate welfare, let alone proposing a budget doing so?
The corporate tax rate helps small business owners. Corporations pay little to no taxes now as it is. Exemptions and offshore loopholes only work for big business. And the only candidate that wants to get rid of the corrupt tax system is Paul.
No public education and no healthcare are false arguments. Our future and our health shouldn't be decided by imperial government agents living in a mansion far far away.
Everybody pays less taxes, and we all prosper.

@hpqp and @ghark The federal education department has very little to do with municipal and state run schools, directly. Once again, a false dilemma. Similar to the Department of energy, which was created to get us off of foreign oil, the ED has failed as a guiding beacon of federal funds as any number of tests will show...just as the DOE has failed to remove us from oil dependence. This isn't throwing the baby out with the bath water, it is throwing out the guy telling you to use jelly instead of water.

>> ^hpqp:

Cutting the opportunity for middle and lower classes to get educated (and, you know, stay alive thanks to healthcare) is the BEST way to let our future be continually in the hands of rich people living in mansions far far away.
>> ^marbles:
>> ^ghark:
"Paul, a longtime critic of federal spending not authorized by the Constitution, calls for eliminating the federal Education, Commerce, Energy, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development Departments.
He also wants to abolish the Transportation Security Agency, end corporate subsidies, plus eliminate all foreign aid and spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
I noticed he wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 15% as well.
No public education, no healthcare, rich pay less taxes and get richer.
Sounds exciting.

It is exciting. Is there any other candidate even saying we should end corporate welfare, let alone proposing a budget doing so?
The corporate tax rate helps small business owners. Corporations pay little to no taxes now as it is. Exemptions and offshore loopholes only work for big business. And the only candidate that wants to get rid of the corrupt tax system is Paul.
No public education and no healthcare are false arguments. Our future and our health shouldn't be decided by imperial government agents living in a mansion far far away.
Everybody pays less taxes, and we all prosper.



Who's cutting opportunities? Oh, yes. You live in the bizarro world where taking from some people (denying them opportunities) is actually providing opportunities for others. At best, you can hope for a net loss (and net gain) of 0 opportunities. In reality, we have to rely on financing the future of our children just to stay ahead. So how did those "rich people living in mansions" get so rich? By finding a niche in this corrupt system or succeeding in spite of it? In the real world, the only real opportunities are ones you recognize for yourself. Helping our fellow man should be our duty, but coercion by the barrel of a gun is tyranny.

Supporting the status quo is the BEST way to let our future be continually in the hands of the few.

>> ^aurens:

A short and varied list of Americans educated in public high schools before the creation, in 1980, of the Department of Education:
Steve Jobs
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Ron Paul
Warren Buffett
Toni Morrison
Carl Sagan
Ernest Hemingway
Linus Pauling
Sandra Day O'Connor
John Steinbeck
Bob Dylan
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Milton Friedman
Noam Chomsky
Oprah Winfrey
George Lucas
Jimmy Carter
Paul Newman
Amelia Earhart
Walt Disney
George Carlin
Elvis Presley
Neil Armstrong
Richard Feynman
Aaron Copland
(I could keep going, but I'm sure you get the point.)>> ^ghark:
No public education ... Sounds exciting.



Aye aye, was being sarcastic