Ron Paul Naysayers. Put this in your chamber and fire it!

[Holland&Holland]

Actually, Ron Paul would take a much different approach than you appear to think. It used to be that Government was the safety net of Last Resort, it is now the sfety net of first resort. He looks to turn that back around. It used to be that when people were in trouble they would look to their immediate family, then extended family, then local church/charity, then Co and State Gov, and finally Fed Government. Heck when SS was started, that is the way it was, and it worked quite well. Who better to understand your needs than the ppeople closest to you....The federal Gov, is furthest from you. Do you know how many charities used to be around, compared to today? The federal gov has crowded them out. People now go directly to government for charity. It is sad, but peoples own families don't want to help. Part of the reason is because the Government does provide, it also TAKES....and people don't feel the need to be charitable anymore because they think their tax dollars go to that, and they gave enough allready. This just makes the problem worse, requiring Government to do even more. This needs to be turned around. Under a Ron Paul administration, you would probabbly get more help than you do now, because there would be more funds available for the truely needy, because he would be spending so much less on EVERYTHING!

and you remeber this because you lived through the great depression I assume?

[chudrockz]

Where in his post is the Great Depression even mentioned?

And it is not necessary to have "lived through" or experienced every possible thing in history to be able to learn from those events.

I didn't live through the Great Depression, and through research it's not difficult for me to understand that government created the conditions that caused it, and then made it worse/ longer than it needed to be by trying to spend their way out of it... much like they're trying to do now.

[Snakeman721]

Where in his post is the Great Depression even mentioned?

And it is not necessary to have "lived through" or experienced every possible thing in history to be able to learn from those events.

I didn't live through the Great Depression, and through research it's not difficult for me to understand that government created the conditions that caused it, and then made it worse/ longer than it needed to be by trying to spend their way out of it... much like they're trying to do now.

Actually, they DID spend their way out of it. It was called WWII.

[chudrockz]

Well, I'd strongly disagree that the Second World War had much, if anything, to do with ending the Great Depression.

But even if it did, does anyone really want WW3 to bring us out of THIS one? I sure don't.

"I know not with what weapons world war 3 will be fought, but world war 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein.

[Pat Cannon]

Well, I'd strongly disagree that the Second World War had much, if anything, to do with ending the Great Depression.

But even if it did, does anyone really want WW3 to bring us out of THIS one? I sure don't.

Whether or not WWII actually got us out of the Depression, the perception that it did is widely held; It's basically what I was told in school.

What worries me is that I can imagine most of the other candidates going for it.

[PileDriver]

Another difference is that the things bought and built in WWII were made here at home. I'd bet a good chunk of the technology spent on Afghanistan and Iraq were made in Japan/China/Bangladesh/Taiwan.

[Holland&Holland]

Where in his post is the Great Depression even mentioned?

And it is not necessary to have "lived through" or experienced every possible thing in history to be able to learn from those events.

I didn't live through the Great Depression, and through research it's not difficult for me to understand that government created the conditions that caused it, and then made it worse/ longer than it needed to be by trying to spend their way out of it... much like they're trying to do now.

It was stated that prior to SS things where all honkey dorry and everyone took care of everyone else and we did not need the feds stepping in. Quite a statement I think. I could only assume that the op has first hand knowledge of this then and since SS start in '35 or so... My point is, you can have your opinion on how things should be but to present it as fact? Carry on.

[tweener]

not stating that things were hunky dory, and I am a student of history, and do not listen to the first thing I hear about history, I look into other view points, and accounts and make my own decision based on rational thought.

What is a firm belief of mine, is that once SS was enacted, things could have possibly been quite honky dory, if it was allowed to be a "last resort" aide.....it has (and other gov programs) become the first place to go for help (for far too many people)

I just don't understand how people feel that the Fed Gov should be the first place they go for help, and how people think that is beneficial to society.

Bottom up is almost always the best approach in almost all things. The best place to get results and efficiently is in the most basic "family" which is family, then your extended family, extended extended family (local charity, church, local gov) then County, then state, then Fed.

No one is arguing that sometime things don't work out at the local level, and sometimes things need to go further up the chain.....just like in business, and every other part of life, the bulk of the work is done at the lowest level, and it is efficient that way. The FED GOV is basically micro-managing things.....micro-managing will ruin any corporation, political organization, or country.

As for WWII ending the great depression, I would take a look at the numbers, and then argue that actually, the return of CAPITAL to being FREELY invested in what ever the markets choose (instead of all the capital being gobbled up by the government) and the massive # of returning troops, becoming active participants in the economy, when they returned home, was what ended the depression. Imagine that......the government cuts spending IMMENSELY, and the economy BOOMS!

Optimism also had a lot to do with it. The economy is greatly affected by peoples perceptions. The perception after the war, was that we were a GREAT and POWERFUL nation, and no one could stop the USA. That perception was very, very powerful. The actual war had little to do with it.....yes you can argue that without the war, that perception would not have been prevalent, and you would be right. But had we not won the war, and Europe had fallen to the Nazis, and they decided to stop advancing, and we just came home...things may have been different. Hard to say for sure. The point is, the war may have started a chain of events that lead to an economic boom, but, just because there was a war, did not guarantee an economic boom, and an economic boom could have very well occurred for other reasons, had there not been a war.

[tweener]

Actually, Ron Paul would take a much different approach than you appear to think. It used to be that Government was the safety net of Last Resort, it is now the sfety net of first resort. He looks to turn that back around. It used to be that when people were in trouble they would look to their immediate family, then extended family, then local church/charity, then Co and State Gov, and finally Fed Government. Heck when SS was started, that is the way it was, and it worked quite well. Who better to understand your needs than the ppeople closest to you....The federal Gov, is furthest from you. Do you know how many charities used to be around, compared to today? The federal gov has crowded them out. People now go directly to government for charity. It is sad, but peoples own families don't want to help. Part of the reason is because the Government does provide, it also TAKES....and people don't feel the need to be charitable anymore because they think their tax dollars go to that, and they gave enough allready. This just makes the problem worse, requiring Government to do even more. This needs to be turned around. Under a Ron Paul administration, you would probabbly get more help than you do now, because there would be more funds available for the truely needy, because he would be spending so much less on EVERYTHING!

and you remeber this because you lived through the great depression I assume?

This is the just about the craziest statement I have ever heard.....Does your understanding of history begin at your birth? 3rd birthday? 10th birthday? My understanding of history, although not perfect, begins with a collection of dust and matter, resulting in a big bang.

[Holland&Holland]

Actually, Ron Paul would take a much different approach than you appear to think. It used to be that Government was the safety net of Last Resort, it is now the sfety net of first resort. He looks to turn that back around. It used to be that when people were in trouble they would look to their immediate family, then extended family, then local church/charity, then Co and State Gov, and finally Fed Government. Heck when SS was started, that is the way it was, and it worked quite well. Who better to understand your needs than the ppeople closest to you....The federal Gov, is furthest from you. Do you know how many charities used to be around, compared to today? The federal gov has crowded them out. People now go directly to government for charity. It is sad, but peoples own families don't want to help. Part of the reason is because the Government does provide, it also TAKES....and people don't feel the need to be charitable anymore because they think their tax dollars go to that, and they gave enough allready. This just makes the problem worse, requiring Government to do even more. This needs to be turned around. Under a Ron Paul administration, you would probabbly get more help than you do now, because there would be more funds available for the truely needy, because he would be spending so much less on EVERYTHING!

and you remeber this because you lived through the great depression I assume?

This is the just about the craziest statement I have ever heard.....Does your understanding of history begin at your birth? 3rd birthday? 10th birthday? My understanding of history, although not perfect, begins with a collection of dust and matter, resulting in a big bang.

It has nothing to do with an understanding of history. You stated that before SS started it worked this way and worked quite well, how prey tell would you know that it worked quite well? You might assume it did based on your study or have listened to opinions of others but to state that it worked when others who lived through that era state it did not, seems rather suspect. But you go right ahead and keep stating how you "know" things to have been.