What does he make ineffective?

He vaguely states he wants government completely out of people's lives. I don't agree with that absolute, though I agree with it in specific instances, many of which he brings up, so I support his policies in these instances. Seat belt laws, food safety laws, financial regulations, SNAP, public goods such as wildlife refuges, roads, schools, libraries, healthcare etc. I see as a net positive. If you limit the government too much you are limiting the ability of people to protect themselves and the common good via the law.

Rand has never said anything like that. He was never against Roads or Schools or Public Refuges. You're thinking of Hardcore Anarchist Capitalists.

I edited my last post for clarity. I will have to look up his voting history and policy proposals to be more specific, but I am judging from what he has said in interviews I've watched. I don't mean that he is that extreme, but libertarians, which he strongly identifies, worry me because of the logical extension of their arguments. Paul is reasonable and has integrity, though, which is overall why he is my favored Republican candidate.

Ron Paul is more extreme than Rand and he doesn't vouch for stuff like that. Rand doesn't want rights limited and money to be wasted, that's about it.

I liked Ron too. I don't like Paul's flat tax idea. I support a slightly progressive tax system, but agree taxes for everyone should be lower and the scope of special interest spending and a rigged tax code need to dealt with. I also like how Paul isn't a talking head for the Defense sector like most Republicans. I also want a single-payer healthcare system or the repeal of the Emergency Care Act, one or the other, because right now we have a situation where healthcare inflation is out of control because we had our foot halfway in or out of the door, depending on how you look at it.

Single Payer healthcare forces taxes onto people and overall diminishes the quality, just like in Canada. What's wrong with Flat Tax?

Single-payer controls inflation. Research has shown that single-payer service is comparable to our healthcare but at much less cost and less financial ruin for citizens due to medical expenses. It may not be as good, but it will still be among the best in the world and the medical community will continue to innovate and expand care. I don't see it as the end of good healthcare. Flat taxes are regressive. 15% of 20,000 affects a person's standard of living way more than 15% of $2,000,000. It also leaves us with budget deficits as Paul has admitted too, only to reach the current tax revenue in 10 years, meaning our national debt would explode unless we cut a ton of spending, which I somewhat support but don't see as likely.

Only because you jack everyone's money from them. Canada has that system and their system is literal shit. Yet it produces positive money and takes our debt down, to make up for the extra stuff Payroll taxes disappear, so you end up getting more money. Then after all that WAY more jobs get created. Not to mention IIRC Rand said any family that makes less than 50K pays 0%, so there goes that "15% of 20,000"

How many people go bankrupt because of medical costs in Canada? From what I've read, it's not a crappy healthcare system. You are paying a percentage of income for healthcare, so for 90% of our population they would pay less. I think the number is 2.2% income tax increase, which for most people would be way cheaper than $400-$700 per month. So yes, you are jacking the money from the wealthy to pay for everyone else's healthcare. I think it's worth it because the societal cost of not doing so I see as a net negative; I think it benefits the rich too is what I'm saying. "Anyone under 50k" is unlikely to pass is Congress, Paul couldn't make that decision unilaterally. Right now me and my wife pay 25% income between state and federal and together we make about 50k, which I think is ridiculously regressive. Meanwhile, big companies, their owners, and CEO are paying as little as 12% (citation needed but it's been in lots of articles I.e. Warren Buffet), businesses like GE are making billions in profit and paying zero tax (citation needed but I'm sure you heard this before), so our tax codes seem definitely to be rigged. A flat federal tax of 14.5% (Paul's number) would mean we pay 34.5% taxes on 50k, or $17,250. Meanwhile, another person in our state making $2,000,000 at that same rate would pay $690,000. It's obvious who that effects more. Imo, the 50k tax should be about 10% leaving $45,000 and the 2 million tax should be 25% leaving 1.5 million. If we got our deficits down I'm fine with lowering the top marginal rates. I really do believe inequality is a major problem in America, with nearly all wealth being created going straight to the top. Mass inequality I fear will lead to revolution.

But forcing everyone to pay extra taxes for healthcare is unconstitutional. People in Canada almost die from freaking strep throat. Everything the government touches turns to crap. You should be paying no taxes under Pauls plan. He closes all the loopholes and will cause the big businesses to bring back their money from overseas since the corporate taxes aren't so high. Which create more jobs. Bernie says 90% tax rate is too high, he's gonna run the rich out of the country and turn us into Venezuela.

It's not unconstitutional, Congress has the right to pass laws. All of the research I've looked at defies your claims about Canada, it seems most people their are happy with their healthcare system as far as I can tell. I know I haven't provided any links, but could you tell me where you got your info? I like what Paul says but like I said I'm not sure about how practical it is as far as passing it into law. I fear it will turn into Reagan and Bush tax cuts that drive us into deficit, so then we cut federal programs causing state agencies to raise taxes and service fees on the lower and middle class. In effect, the rich get tax breaks and the rest of us pay for it. Did you mean Bernie thinks 90% [u]isn't[/u] too high? This is where I disagree with Bernie, unless you are talking about unconscionable amounts of wealth. For instance, what good for society comes from someone having $50 Billion worth of wealth not circulating the economy? I continue to consider the idea that after a certain amount, wealth should either be recirculated or taxed at 100% to be recirculated, clearly this is over my head though. There is clearly something wrong with the free market when we have half the country in poverty while a handful of people are worth more than $25 Billion. Redistributing that wealth isn't going to happen naturally, it's literally impossible for one person to oversee it. We have so much wealth in America but when most of it isn't circulating I see that as troublesome. But for your average millionaire, I think anything over 30% sounds too high. Again, this is probably over my head.

They don't have a right to force me to pay for some good I don't want . Yeah I meant isnt* he's gonna run people out of the country with those taxes and there goes jobs We haven't had capitalism Or free market though

Odds are we are both currently paying taxes for things we don't agree with. It's what it means to abide by the law in our Republic Democracy. Also, how can anyone say they don't "want" healthcare? It's fact that nearly everybody in America will use a hospital at some point in their lives. Healthcare is inevitable, which is why we have to hold people accountable to pay for it. Either that, or we repeal the Emergency Care Act and say if you don't have insurance or enough money to pay, we let you suffer and/or die. I don't believe in "Atlas Shrugged". I think the American people hold considerable leverage (skills, money, land, etc.) and companies actually want/need to be here. I also think the businesses that would leave would be leaving behind huge potential and opportunity and other money would simply pick up where they left off. That's how capitalism works, you snooze you lose. However, unreasonable tax rates will likely hinder growth and expansion as it factors into cost/benefit analysis. 90% is too high, but I have no reason to believe that we would be anywhere close to that under Sanders. I agree we haven't had capitalism or free market, because the foundation of the free market is fairness and competition. Many industries have insulated themselves from competition by manipulating public policy and crafting trade agreements that make American workers uncompetitive.

But forcing more taxes is never the answer. Just because something as is happening Doesn't mean more bad things don't matter We have corporatism now, high tax rates are hindering growth her Sanders wants to continue this path of Keynesian Failure

Who says we are forcing new taxes? A 2.2% increase isn't very much, it could easily be worked into what we already pay if we cut other programs or consolidated them. Like I said before, America has the money and the resources, so why not do the fiscally responsible thing whether its universal healthcare or no healthcare for 50% of Americans? I'm not really buying the high tax argument. The top marginal rate is under 40% and most pay much less than that because when you make that much money you hire and accountant and make investments to avoid most of it. If you think poor people try to defraud the system, you should see the people who make lots of money! I know many personally, and trust me, they will do whatever it takes to avoid paying Uncle Sam. Sanders seems to be against corporatism, making your last statement kind of confusing. Could you clarify? To me it seems Sanders wants an accountable Keynesian model, whereas now we have a very slanted approach that only benefits the very wealthy.

Sanders does. He said the healthcare cost is just shitted over to taxes. It's BS, I shouldn't be forced to pay for healthcare. Not to mention all the other added things (forced paid leave, free college, etc.) that you'll have to pay for taxes. You only think it's a 2.2% increase because of other countries but in debates he's said its just shifted over to the taxes. We need to give healthcare back to the free market. Sanders is against Corporatism but he blames capitalism, we haven't even had capitalism. Raising taxes that high will cause them to run away and there goes all the jobs. You can say "well new businesses will start up" but when Walmart or Ford just runs away from America it's going to leave many Americans unemployed and new businesses aren't going to fill that gap, especially when Sanders is going to [b]make even more regulations[/b] against businesses. How are new businesses supposed to survive when they are forced to pay employees a minimum of $15 and if they have over 50 employees they have to pay healthcare plus play the extra corporate taxes and payroll taxes then because of all that extra stimulus that Keynesian economics puts in there's gonna be inflation out of the ass. His whole plan is a recipe for disaster, and it couldn't be timed worse as many economists are saying it's highly possible we could be heading into another recession.

[quote]Sanders does. He said the healthcare cost is just shitted over to taxes. It's BS, I shouldn't be forced to pay for healthcare. Not to mention all the other added things (forced paid leave, free college, etc.) that you'll have to pay for taxes. You only think it's a 2.2% increase because of other countries but in debates he's said its just shifted over to the taxes. We need to give healthcare back to the free market. [/quote] You should be forced to pay for healthcare if you plan on using it, which is nearly everybody. The alternative, as I said above, is the repeal of the law that mandates doctors to treat everybody. That would leave nearly 50% of Americans without healthcare, meaning no vaccines to preventable diseases for them, no treatments for diseases for them, and no emergency care for them. This would negatively effect everybody, even those who could afford healthcare, but wouldn't result in extreme healthcare cost inflation due to people defaulting on hospital bills. The same logic works for paid family leave and education, because they benefit the majority of people. It's only forcing people to pay for what they inevitably will end up needing. People not paying are cheating the system and free riding on these common goods. [quote]Sanders is against Corporatism but he blames capitalism, we haven't even had capitalism. Raising taxes that high will cause them to run away and there goes all the jobs. You can say "well new businesses will start up" but when Walmart or Ford just runs away from America it's going to leave many Americans unemployed and new businesses aren't going to fill that gap, especially when Sanders is going to make even more regulations against businesses. How are new businesses supposed to survive when they are forced to pay employees a minimum of $15 and if they have over 50 employees they have to pay healthcare plus play the extra corporate taxes and payroll taxes then because of all that extra stimulus that Keynesian economics puts in there's gonna be inflation out of the ass. [/quote] I'm pretty sure he means the economic system that we have falsely label capitalism but is really crony capitalism. I think he has used that term "crony capitalism" a few times. I accept your point about companies leaving, but I really don't think under Sanders we will see those tax hikes, especially considering congressional approval. I don't know what new regulations you are criticizing. I'm not convinced either way on the $15 number, it seems like a lot of speculation and exaggeration from anti-$15, and pro-$15 people haven't presented a good argument to do it other than we have lots of poverty, I'd have to read real research about it. Keynesian economics was created to deal with the Great Depression, correct? If used correctly, wouldn't it make sense, at least theoretically, during another depression? Honestly, it seems it has worked as far as recovery but only for those who were already rich before, during, and after the recession. I think Bernie claims to seek to use it in a way that helps the middle and lower class at the expense of the upper class, as if to circulate the gains of the past 8 years so the 90% can realize the recovery whereas they haven't so far. What is the indicator of another recession?

But people already do fine without healthcare if they don't want it, and they have Medicare/caid for people who can't afford expensive care. If you give it to the free market, supply would be up and demand would be up so competition would ensue and prices would be low. Keynesian Economics tried to deal with the depression but really made things worse, do research, FDR really prolonged the depression with his Keynesian stuff. Stuff only healed when massive spending cuts and lower taxes happened, which is really the opposite of what Sanders wants. Despite what Sanders says, he wants more regulation of businesses (More Regulation = Corporatism because it harms new businesses) yet he wants to topple the big businesses with large tax rates (Stealing all that money = Socialism) so we end up with big business leaving a small bus knees still struggling, then we end up with subsidizing small businesses and just a repeat of the depression because the government will have to artificially shift jobs to people, and it it'll stop like in the depression when spending is cut back to how it was before and taxes are lowered Austrian Economics is the only real system that will have a self sufficient economy.

[quote]But people already do fine without healthcare if they don't want it, and they have Medicare/caid for people who can't afford expensive care. If you give it to the free market, supply would be up and demand would be up so competition would ensue and prices would be low. [/quote] They "do fine" until they have a medical emergency, then we all pay for it in the form of price increases. This is why the "free market" doesn't work for healthcare, and why we saw 10% healthcare cost inflation for over a decade leading up to the ACA. "Supply and demand" isn't relevant to the healthcare industry because everyone uses healthcare, it is inevitable, at least with the laws we have in place now that guarantee treatment. [quote]Keynesian Economics tried to deal with the depression but really made things worse, do research, FDR really prolonged the depression with his Keynesian stuff. Stuff only healed when massive spending cuts and lower taxes happened, which is really the opposite of what Sanders wants. Despite what Sanders says, he wants more regulation of businesses (More Regulation = Corporatism because it harms new businesses) yet he wants to topple the big businesses with large tax rates (Stealing all that money = Socialism) so we end up with big business leaving a small bus knees still struggling, then we end up with subsidizing small businesses and just a repeat of the depression because the government will have to artificially shift jobs to people, and it it'll stop like in the depression when spending is cut back to how it was before and taxes are lowered [/quote] It is actually commonly held that the New Deal did significantly improve the situation, at least enough to prevent revolution, but that it alone wasn't enough to life the country out of the depression. Keynesian economics have continued since then and we have had good economies and bad economies. The boom era after WWII continued these policies and marginal tax rates were high (top was 70%). That was arguably the greatest time in the American economy. I haven't heard anything about Sanders wanting to regulate small businesses more, and his tax proposals for Wall Street and the extremely wealthy have been super small increments, like under 5% increase. You will have to point me to where you are getting your information. Austrian Economics is a good foundation for most parts of the economy, but not all such as healthcare, education, etc. at least not with optimal, equitable results. I identify as a utilitarian more than anything.

And if they're in an emergency situation and they don't have insurance they go in debt. The safety net is also still there. It's called freedom to buy what you want. It's also commonly held that Abraham Lincoln was a good president, when the opposite is true. If you do research the economy only started healing after massive spending cuts and less taxes.

"Debt" isn't a safety net, I thought you would agree as a fiscal conservative. People don't just "go in debt" for massive medical bills, they file bankruptcy, hence inflation at over 10% for a decade before Obamacare. This is verifiable, look it up. The "good president" vs "bad president" is an argument for every president, the fact is that some things each president does is good and other things bad, and even then it's up for debate. But I think you are mistaken about the economy not recovering until spending cuts and tax reduction, because that didn't happen for a long time if ever, arguably under Reagan but even then spending continued to rise, we just lost tax revenue which shifted the tax burden to the states and thus the middle class and lower class. In the 40s, 50s, and 60s government social programs were abundant and the top marginal tax rate was much closer to 80%-90%. The economy is cyclical, taxes are just one part of the equation and not he strongest indicator of what the economy will do.

It's better than forcing people to pay. Like I said, healthcare and med prices would go down with the free market. Actually after ww2 massive spending cuts happened and taxes were lowered a little bit, which caused it to heal, then Reagan cut taxes more and better things happened again.

How is out of control inflation better than forcing them to pay? Instead of them paying, they go bankrupt which hurts our economy and communities, stresses our social programs like food stamps and welfare, and the cost gets shifted to other healthcare consumers in the form of higher costs. Please read carefully: [u][i][b]the free market results in the above and has already been proven to cause skyrocketing inflation and unaffordable healthcare. [/b][/i][/u] Look at healthcare cost inflation from 1999 to 2009, [u]that was the free market and it didn't work.[/u] the only way the free market works is if you deny care to people who you think won't pay, otherwise they will bankrupt and we see skyrocketing inflation. What it boils down to is that with the Emergency Care Act we made healthcare a common good that everyone can use, and what we suffer without a mandate is what we call the [b]free-rider problem[/b] What year after WWII were taxes cut and spending cut? What was the top marginal rate at that time? To my knowledge, alphabet government programs continued through the 60s and the top marginal rate was 70% on $200,000+ income through the 1960s. http://taxfoundation.org/sites/default/files/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal.pdf Our heyday economy had a 70% top marginal rate. The economy is cyclical, Reagan takes credit for a boom in 80s but lots of economists say it would have happened anyway and by Reagan lowering the top marginal rate all he really did was lose tax revenue. Then, halfway through his first term he had to cut programs that help the poor and middle class and shifted the tax burden on the middle class while the rich got a free pass. In effect, the middle class took a huge beating but continued to praise Reagan for an economy recovery he had nothing to do with. Read at least the first half of this article, I know it's not a source you will like, but read it because nothing it says is untrue, it's just facts. Also try googling about the economic theory that presidents claim they did something when really who the president is doesn't matter, the economy works itself out. If you believe in Austrian economics you know this to be true. http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/10/ronald-reagans-legacy

If we had true free market costs would lower while quality raises. I don't know the year, but just look up how FDR didn't really end the depression