Ron Paul 7/18/2009 “Obama Got $1 Million From Goldman Sachs, Planning A World Currency”

who benefit from tax loopholes aside from home ownership, but we also have an old power grid, inefficient public transport, no healthcare, a system of shoddy levies Louisiana that don't exist (lookup the dams netherlands), homelessness, more prisoners than the height of apartheid and education is a joke to where schools are just trying to graduate kids.

Why does it bother that their are rich people? If the poor are made better off then so what? If one makes 30,000 and another 100,000 and both get a 50% raise than the gap has widened but they are both better off. Do you realize almost everything you complained about are already controlled by the government? Old power grid, government controlled already, inefficient public transport, government controlled, no healthcare, I'm assuming you mean public health care if so half those without insurance could easily afford it they choose not to purchase it the other half already qualify for government sponsored healthcare and if you mean quality we have some of the best health care in the world, a system of shoddy levies Louisiana, government controlled, that don't exist (lookup the dams netherlands), homelessness, shelters do exist and are not even close to capacity, more prisoners than the height of apartheid, government mandated draconic drug laws and drug related offenses account for over 75% of prisoners, and education is a joke to where schools are just trying to graduate kids, government monopoly. You proved my point more eloquently than I could have, thank you.

I'm trying to figure this better standard of living you speak of, especially in a society with very little social protection.

Very little social protection? Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Food stamps, Homeless shelters, charities, ect....

The goal of a society isn't to just have huge amounts of money concentrated in a few people hands, what the hell will that do for anyone?

Look who care if money is concentrated in the hands of a few? 20% of people produce about 80% of the good and services in society. As long as everyone is better off what difference does it make. If I make 100,000 and another makes 200,000 should I be bothered if we both get a 50% raise?

The idea that we can be motivated to make a better society because we see some guy driving a mercedes is stupid,

I absolutely agree with this one.

all it does is show a selfish and envious society.

This seems a little extreme. Especially since we give more as a percentage of our income that almost any nation on the planet.

What society can thrive on fiscal control being at the mercy of private enterprise,

Our society can and has for hundreds of years. You take a lot for granted. The more government interferes in the economy the more socialized we become the worse off we are. You look around and see a crumbling society and so do I. You see the decay resulting from corporatism and again I agree. You see an inefficient government beholden to no one, and I agree. But to think that the solution is to increase the governments power over the private enterprise seems illogical. This is what has been happening for almost the last 100 years how is the government being more involved in corporations the solution for something caused by the government being overly involved in private enterprise?

who by the way don't make things better than the government, heaven forbid the post office and library, the police and fire department were "private".

Sounds like a pretty good idea. How can you even

lastly I mentioned "no government" as the rhetoric floating around, I didn't say anyone was outright asking for it anymore than me mentioning anarchy as a byproduct of collapsing the government, I didn't say anyone wanted it either.

The only people who mention "no government" are anarchists and those who would use a straw man fallacy to counter libertarianism.

bull,

you're missing the mark and maybe to quick to jump on the capitalism gave us everything we have.

Well I guess I could write about how government gave me everything but then I would have to mention how they had to take the money, representing productivity, from me and others first.

What capitalism does well is make up value, and production is only the benefit of the producer not the society.

Increases in productivity reduce the resources necessary to produce services or provide services while innovation increase quality. This reduces costs to consumers and provides better services innovation. As a proportion of income most services are much cheaper than they used to be while their quality has increased. If you want to target food as an example going up just remember food is one of the most highly subsidized and protected industries in America.

If it were for society then the perfect car would be made and those who control production wouldn't release a new one every six months to force sales.

You're right it was called the trabant.

No, buddy thats not innovation thats making sure consumerism continues, but keep waiting for the perfect cell phone or whatever they're selling these days.

The cars they make will last a decade or two with proper maintenance it is people who for some reason continue to repurchase vehicles. I have a 1996 ford aspire and couldn't be happier. Technology does improve in cell phones and if people want to freely purchase cell phones every minute period of time that is within their power to do so. You seem to think these producer have a perfect car and cell phone tucked away somewhere that they obstinately refuse to manufacture. This doesn't make any sense. If I have the perfect produce I could produce it cheaply and dominate the market. If you believe these people to be motivated by greed any perfect product would be sold to maximize profit, they would make a fortune. But I agree with you buying every little innovation is not for me but people are spending their money.

As the son of an engineer this is a waste, imagine if bridges has to be rebuilt from scratch (not maintained) its like saying the citizens of new york need to buy the new and improved brooklyn bridge 3.0 or something, it just wouldn't make sense to the public to pay taxes for it.

Again you seem to be confusing preference with necessity. No one is forcing anyone to purchase a new car or cell phone. I have my original cell phone from 2001 so I agree about maintaining what you have and not buying every new gadget on the market but this is not forced on anyone and taxes are certainly not spent on it.

So engineers make things to last, not for sales. Production is a tool for society not for private citizens, but not completely at the whim of a dictator either.

Many engineer do make things to last but if no one wants to buy them this is irrelevant. Production is owned by those that produce not by society this is where people get into trouble.
Now for standard of living have you been to those countries?

No I haven't.

Please spare me the ussr as an example. The russian communism and socialism I speak of are worlds apart.

How would your socialism work?

One is government literally forcing the people to production were the latter the people use the government as tool for getting things done. I've lived under the latter, and I must say Paris is pretty great. Free internet in the parks, healthier citizens who live longer (fast food restaurants literally are required to put notices that you're better off eating fruits and vegetables), better education, highly efficient public transportation and a happier way of life yes taxes are high, but so what.

Sounds nice, to bad they are in even greater danger of collapse than we are. You should know the economy they have today is the result of 20 years of privatization Look at their increasing legacy costs, their falling GDP

The US has some pretty tall buildings and rich people

History is skewed in the direction of those who write the books, but looking back in our nation's history, we revolutionized the world in just a short 200 years. From the automobiles to electricity; movies to music; computers to the internet; crystal meth to... err... skip that one.

The point is, our form of government and policies of the past encouraged innovators and entrepreneurs to create the world we live in today.

We can work towards gaining some of that which made us great back -- what Dr. Paul represents. Or we can work towards more of the same... in which case we need to do nothing (except maybe buy a gun and lots of ammo [assuming it remains legal and our government allows us to do so]).

sorry to get off subject but i wanted to chime in and get off this "no government" thing floating around. It seems nice and fluffy at first but its flawed logic.

we forget what government was supposed to be
the collective will of the populace to organize the complex task of maintaining and growing a society by delegating those task to elected peers. Its basically the people setting up a complex pickup game for the benefit of the people. However people seem to think that the government is a ruling body, as if we need to be ruled so government was allowed to seize the power we allowed it have in the first place. Personally speaking I feel a person should respect a president no more than you respect your dog for the simple fact both are there for our pleasure and happiness. Truth be told the best form of government in this sense is european socialism, because it regulates itself for the benefit of its population not just a few lucky or connected people. Its by no means a perfect system but at least the people typically get what they want.
An example of this would be:
we need better roads for the good of society so we would force our "government" to organize a group of construction workers to build roads. If we lack hospitals then we once again we demand new hospitals and thus are built.
However government is a human system and like all human system it is inherently inefficient, flawed and weak like the people who invent them. Thats the reality of things now until we have computers running things, its all we have to chose from.
Even if we broke up the system we have now, in the mist of some anarchist chaos we'd just create a new central government made up of peers because having everyone handling things would be a cluster f*ck. Imagine if you organized a soccer game and everyone was sending emails to organize the game, then likely you'd probably go mad due inefficiency and full email boxes aside from human errors.
We have corrupt politicians and bad laws because we have forgotten that the government is our tool, our will nothing more.

The foundation of U.S. and European currency for the past 500 years has been the resources and labor of the Americas.

The Federal Reserve is privately controlled and accountable only to it's leaders.

The value of the U.S. Dollar has been decimated by a national focus on war as industry.

Bush is a war criminal. He needs to defend his actions. His own father as president first used the phrase, "New World Order".

If Obama is forced to entertain the idea of a world currency, it is because G.W. Bush spent eight years eroding the unique power that the dollar has had. He sent literally tons of dollars, stacked on pallets on ships, to Iraq and Afghanistan.

He fought two wars simultaneously and cut our taxes at the same time.

If Fox news was having discussions like this one while Bush was attacking our society for the past eight years, perhaps our money would have remained desirable.

now thats "change" i believed he would bring......

Ron Paul said we should get rid of the Board of Education and the Department of Agriculture. As I've said, consider the source before passing judgment on this stuff.

Doesn't really say he got $1 million and i really hope that's not how cheap he is to corrupt or that he is even corruptible.

It's time to put a limit on 'campaign lengths'. Two years is too long. Sarah Palin resigned as Governor and MSM was asking about 2012. Who cares, it's too early to start campaigning.

Today all candidates must count on campaign donors. It's the nature of the beast. Our elections are set up to force people to turn to corporations and other large donors to fund their campaigns.

And again just where does Ron Paul get all his special information that nobody else knows? Or is everyone but him in on the conspiracy? I would like to see someone acutally call bullshit on everything he puts out. Given the vast number of videos he puts out I have come to the conclusion that he must dedicate the bulk of his days recording the next phrophecy.

Over a billion dollars was spent on the last presidential campaign. So Goldman Sacks kicked in .1% of that. Your point.

The title is admittedly a little incendiary and melodramatic but the point is still valid. I doubt any one would argue that this at least gives the appearance of a conflict of interest and at worst could indicate outright bribery. I tend to look at it as a definite conflict of interest but not outright bribery. Either way this is as shocking at the story of "dog bites man" I think everyone know about these donations. Maybe we have become so used to the powers that be acting unconscionably that we have become desensitized, this didn't even make me blink, it was like reading water is wet and fire is hot. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil.

If you want big business out of your big government don't give government the power to tax, tariff, subsidize, protect, over regulate, ect and big business will have no reason to go after big government. This would eliminate many conflicts of interest. If government has nothing to offer business than they have no incentive to try to bribe them and if business has nothing to offer government they have no incentive act on businesses behalf behalf. If someone has the power to determine your fate you will do all in your power to gain influence over them.

I suggest that before you totally buy into this stuff remember who these sources are and that the quotes are exerts. Look further into it.

OH YEA I still have all my stuff the wife and I don't live outside of our meens In other words we pay cash for most stuff we don't live on credit If we can't afford it we do with out

well things could be worst. I don't see any dead bodies or hear any bombs going off in my neiborhood. so for right now I think every thing is Ok for now. but that can always change untill then I have nothing to complane about

McCain was the wamonger and weapon's contractor's choice for president while Obama was the banker's choice for presidency. We didn't really have a choice for president.

If Bush and Cheney didn'[t get big buck from the oil industry would we invaded Iraq? If the lobbyist for the tobacco industry stopped giving out big bucks sooner, would be a smoke free nation by now? We allow them to take big bucks to vote according to he wallet and do nothing about it. So how can we expect them to keep the fingers out of the till when we only condemn those from the opposing party when caught and find excuses for those from our party. I would not care if every one of them got BJ's or gave them, if they would do their own business and stop condemning others for doing the same thing. Its up to us to vote the crooks out. and to keep exposing them and keep their crimes out there as if they just happened that day.

This Goldman Sachs bunch has had it's hands in on every financial meltdown of the century.