Here it is. Thank you MoxNews for posting!
Smaller government equals lower taxes and more freedom.
Please Donate Today!
A Paul/Johnson ticket would cause quite a stir and would alleviate much of the "he's too old" nonsense that'll be directed at Ron.
I'd vote for either of them, but together they'd be fierce.
He was much more popular going than when he entered and that is the way it should be. He did a really good job, sounded sincere and it on great point.
He will make a great complemental team with a "social conservative" candidate.
Ron / Gary ???
Would prob be a great team together, but why not make it a first and have father and son :)
Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution
"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT
I think Paul/Paul is the most impractical of all possibilities and I love them both, of course. But father son on the same ticket just sounds way too Bush like to me. I don't like it.
yeah I understand, people want some sort of different opinions to an extent between pres and vp. So I would def be excited over anything that has Doc P and Prez.
Rand should focus on his Senate seat for the time being. 2012 is too early for him to run. Ron/Gary would be the best option we could ask for.
Ron should decide not to run for 2012, I would love to see Rand / Gary.
Ron will ALWAYS be with us as a mentor, prophet and a statesman for our liberty candidates and a leader of the 21st century revival of the American Liberty Movement.
I forgot an important rule on here below, dont' feed the trolls :)
LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15
Imagine! Running the country like..a business? WOah! now that's radical thinking :) Good speech
It is a little radical.
For example, government doesn't have post offices in the middle of nowhere in Montana because it is profitable...it doesn't offer low-traffic public service because it is profitable...it doesn't help the homeless and drug-addicted because it is profitable...
Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:
Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a
lowers prices therefor more would be affordable. Actually the private sector could offer all that, but I know you don't agree and I don't really care what you think. I have no desire to get into another pointless argument with you. You just put down every libertarian idea on here.
How would competition ensure that a rural town in Montana gets postal service?
Actually, the private sector does offer mail services.
If you really want competition, then you must be completely in favor of a public health option in regards to health insurance.
problem. It is the suppression of competition which is the problem.
... because there are a multitude of transactions in a free market, and advocates should not be expected to accurately predict the behavior of millions of strangers.
However... If more than one person in that "rural town in Montana" were interested in receiving mail, they would both look into it, and whomever found a reliable courier would likely share that datum with his neighbor. If no one in town were interested in receiving mail, why should we worry our pretty little heads over the matter?
dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america
As you can imagine, in that specific case, they would likely pay much more for their shipping.
When it comes to an issue like this, I very much support the idea of "everyone sharing the pain" (of increased costs to delivering to rural areas). And the American people agree with me...certainly the founders would have supported a post office being available to everyone...they agreed that certain services should not be withheld from people who can't pay fair market value...
I'm in favor of private health insurance being able to offer options to people from other states, that would introduce a much vaster amount of competition then a public option.
As you noticed UPS and Fedex handle rural areas just fine, and they also don't loose 8.5 billion in one year like the USPS does.
Yeah, health insurance across state lines. That is the idea the insurance companies have been pushing. Of course, that is just a prelude, so that insurance companies can get "regulated" by the state with the weakest regulation. They'll base their operations in South Dakota and try and serve patients in California or Texas.
They pulled this trick off with credit cards. A pro-credit card law written by the Citibank lobby was passed in South Dakota; everyone in the country is subject to that law. Soon all credit cards became based in South Dakota.
"As you noticed UPS and Fedex handle rural areas just fine, and they also don't loose 8.5 billion in one year like the USPS does."
This is an arguable point. For example, UPS and FedEx both have a fuel surcharge for rural deliveries. Or they won't deliver to certain areas. Or they don't deliver to PO boxes. Basically, "the pain" is put on the people who mail to and people who live in rural areas.
USPS doesn't do this. They are federally mandated to deliver to everywhere in the country. As a result, everyone "shares the pain".
You also need to look at the delivery structure. UPS and Fedex, even if they have to deliver to rural areas, have to do it on occassion. They don't have to deliver regular first-class mail. Think of it this way: UPS has to deliver 1,000 packages a year to a place in Montana for a loss of 5 dollars a package (assuming no fuel surcharge, etc.). USPS has to deliver 1 million letters/packages a year to the same place at a loss of 5 cents/letter. That is 5,000 vs. 50,000. Not to mention, UPS and Fedex pass on a lot of their deliveries to USPS (they do this for deliveries to the boonies).
Lastly, USPS lost 8.5 billion in 2010, because of the recession. They lost 3 billion in 2009 and "only" 1.1 billion in 2008. UPS and FedEx also increased their rates by about 5% in 2010; UPS had a 20% increase in fuel charges. USPS didn't do that, as they didn't want increased costs of shipping to hamper the economy. They've finally started doing it now, in desparation.
Insurance companies enjoy their oligopies in each individual state. They lobby to prevent people from having numerous choices across state lines. That's why state laws preserve these profitable oligopies.
The more competition results in LOWER prices and HIGHER quality goods/services.
Competition is compromised when your competitor gets access to unlimited govt funds. This is also better described as economic fascism.