<p>“For as long as you want to avoid communism, this extreme fairness will not happen.”</p>
<p>While that may be true, its no reason to throw our hands up in the air and avoid addressing institutionalized injustice.</p>
<p>Why is it unjust? Its capitalism!</p>
<p>or you could work hard and get someone to pay it for you or make money and pay out loans etc. Right? I don’t see why things in life need to be made “fair”. I think if you work hard, then you can get what you deserve from that hard work.</p>
<p>Communism’s failed everywhere it’s been tried. Capitalism is what works best. We’re in the land of opportunity - it’s just left to us to take advantage of it.</p>
<p>I am highly against most things that promote socialism or communism on a large scale.</p>
<p>You guys are way out in left field. There’s nothing socialist about giving tax breaks to college students. Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a socialist.</p>
<p>ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad- I see where you are coming. Your views on this subject differ because of how great UC’s are. Most states don’t have public schools with top rated programs. Berekely, UCSD, UCLA are all awesome schools, top notch as well but what about people on the east coast or elsewhere?
</p>
<p>The odds of that are slim to none. You can take out loans, but you are still left with very hefty bills to pay during college. </p>
<p>If things aren’t made to be fair why should a minority have priority to schools and jobs over a Caucasian? Why do we take part in affirmative action to begin with? </p>
<p>Sure it may seemed a bit far fetched, but weren’t Sir William Penn’s methodology considered far fetched at first? Civil Right was once seen as too idealistic as well.</p>
<p>Vyse: That video of Ron Paul “schooling” Ben Bernanke is absurd. I’ve watched it before, and Ron Paul certainly doesn’t school him in any sense of the world. Bernanke ends up looking really uncomfortable, but that’s not because he’s being put under pressure, but rather because he’s having to deal with a Congressman making absolutely baseless and absurd claims that make little sense, in a setting where one would think such people wouldn’t be.</p>
<p>God knows I’d look like an idiot too - it’s pretty tough to deal with assertions like Paul’s in that setting without outright breaking decorum and calling him an idiot.</p>
<p>Anyways, as to the actual assertion: the Fed has as much control and as little oversight as necessary to run the macroeconomic policy of the country without it being manipulated for political gain. </p>
<p>I also noticed you have yet to back down from your absurd assertion that the Fed prints money. Going to do that sometime soon?</p>
<p>Uri:</p>
<p>I’m not as familar with public east coast schools but certainly UVA seems to typically be in a similar league with the top UCs and there must be other good state colleges in the NE as well. I work with people who attened HYPS… as well as others who’ve attended various state schools (including SUNY) and once in the workforce for a while, where they went to school becomes far less important than how well they perform their tasks at work, their initiative, and their motivation. I’ve seen plenty of real world cases where people with degrees from lower tier colleges as well as people with no degrees at all have been more ‘successful (achieved higher positions and earned more)’ than some people who attended top colleges.</p>
<p>I do agree that where one went to school does have an impact on initial employment opportunities although good opportunities aren’t limited to the top 20 or 50 colleges.</p>
<p>I think more important than where one attends college is how motivated and hard-working that person is.</p>
<p>Individuals (and the market) is able to better allocate funds than the wasteful bureaucracy that we call the federal government. Don’t look at this as “subsidizing” anything, look at it as taking away from the government that shouldn’t even be spending your money on 90% of the things it spends it on anyways. You’re still asking people to pony up their own money, you’re just allowing them to make more effective use of their funds tax-free. (Do /you/ have a mortgage? Because I’m going to lose sleep tonight if I know that you’re taking the interest deduction on your tax returns, why? Because I’m “subsidizing” home ownership, why should I be doing that?)</p>
<p>sorry, vyse, but a true libertarian would not use the tax code for social engineering…</p>
<p>Well, he’d rather abolish the income tax altogether, which would make this entire discussion moot. But let’s look at all of the deductions that are in our lovely tax code… Deductions for mortgage interest? That’s engineering people into home ownership, how dare they. Deductions for charitable donations? All those are elements of “social engineering,” by your logical bluebayou.</p>
<p>sonofsam: Yes, those are social engineering, both by bluebayou’s logic and by general common sense. Doesn’t mean they’re bad, but they’re certainly not in accordance with classical libertarian principles (generally)</p>
<p>My least favorite idea of Ron Paul’s is dismantling the FDA. This organization works to protect the food supply and to make sure that drugs have been adequately tested. The FDA isn’t perfect, but we’re sure a lot better off having the federal government involved with this than not.</p>
<p>The FDA also keeps life saving drugs off the market and takes bribes from big pharma. </p>
<p>You’re acting like we’d be back in the 1700s if we abolished them. In the era of 24 hour news and the internet, companies would do their own extensive testing, or else lack of consumer confidence would eat them alive.</p>
<p>In the era of 24 hour news and the internet, companies would do their own extensive testing</p>
<p>We * ALREADY* have biased research which enables drugs to get on the market that have not been adequtely tested.
[Alliance</a> for Human Research Protection - Industry Influence: FDA “Critical Path”/ Biased Research: BMJ / NIH: still smoke & mirrors](<a href=“http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/355/27/]Alliance”>http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/355/27/)
To think that doing away with the FDA will result in more safety and information for consumers is hopelessly naive</p>
<p>[BBC</a> NEWS | Health | Doctors ‘influenced by drug companies’](<a href=“http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/health/2946276.stm]BBC”>BBC NEWS | Health | Doctors 'influenced by drug companies')
[Is</a> It Really Research When a Pharma Company Pays For It? - Diabetes Health](<a href=“http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read/2006/10/01/4891.html]Is”>http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read/2006/10/01/4891.html)</p>
<p>Well either way the whole news/media thing can be deemed irrelevant. We are seeing a huge shift at the avenue of which media is distributed, blogs and other things are providing people with something they have yet to achieve in media - a voice.</p>
<p>Im expecting one of the former heads of OSHA tomorrow- Ill try and pull him off the trail and ask him what he thinks about Ron Pauls legislation to try and eliminate OSHA
[OSHA</a> Workers’ Page](<a href=“http://www.osha.gov/as/opa/worker/index.html]OSHA”>http://www.osha.gov/as/opa/worker/index.html)</p>
<p>[Ron</a> Paul and the Employer/Employee Relationship | Tampa Bay Independent Media](<a href=“http://tampabay.indymedia.org/article/ron-paul-employeremployee-relationship]Ron”>http://tampabay.indymedia.org/article/ron-paul-employeremployee-relationship)</p>
<p>I dont think Ron Paul is for the “common man” at all. I think he is for big business.</p>
<p>Regulation harms “small business” more than “big” business (which /has/ the resources to lobby effectively in its own interest). I don’t think harming the ability of individuals to work is an ideal which we should be striving for (unless you want to cause more jobs to be moved to other countries).</p>
<p>sonofsam:</p>
<p>of course, every tax break/deduction IS social engineering (which is mainly why politicians run for office, in my cynical opinion), but social engineering by the government/congress is generally against libertarian principals. And, of course, another tax deduction is not consistent with the Paul’s intent to “abolish the income tax alogther.”</p>
<p>vyse: FDA taking bribes is a significant statement. Care to post some proof? (but, no doubt that congress is supported by big pharma and vice versa).</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>No, it would take us back to about 1900, when the US was much like China is today - companies cutting corners and ignoring safety in order to maximize profits. Newspapers were outraged by it then too. And the public knew that most drugs were at best bogus and at worst downright dangerous. But public outrage and lack of consumer confidence did nothing to solve the problem. That’s why the FDA was created in the first place - to clean up the mess that the free market coupled with bad publicity was incapable of solving.</p>
<p>I work in an industry that is regulated by the FDA. And as much as I hate them on one level (they create an enormous amount of work and expense for the company) I wouldn’t have them go away. If the FDA disappeared on Sunday the serious corner-cutting at most companies would begin by Thursday.</p>
<p>The FDA are like cops. You hate them when they give you a ticket, but overall you are a lot better off with them on patrol than you would be without them.</p>