Between 500,000 and 1 million people are dead in the nation of Myanmar. The government of that nation is doing nothing to bring relief to the suffering people who lay in the path of Cyclone Nargis. The government has said the people are on their own; that the people don't need food aid or medical supplies or housing. It is precisely this sort of do-nothing government that Ron Paul wants to create here in the United States. As if the Hurricane Katrina disaster weren't enough, Ron Paul wants to dismantle whatever disaster relief infrastructure our nation possesses.
At a time when Congress ought to be crying out for aid to the stricken people of Myanmar, and disaster victims within our own country, your little 'Dr. No' stands in the way of constructive efforts by the government to save lives, and therefore, by extension stands for death. Ron Paul has blood on his hands. And not just fetal blood from a childbirth. I'm talking innocent blood. You all should be ashamed.
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 1082 reads
****
Very interesting thread we have here. Perhaps the first controversial post on the forums? When disaster hits and when you are in need of help, do you steal to survive? I hope not, but when Government is taking others money and distributing it to others, this Robin Hood Philosophy is nothing more than theft and the immoral redistribution of wealth by people who have neither the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.
This has to be the most idiotic posting I've read on BTM to date. Ron Paul's message of limited government explicitly has to do with the inefficiencies of federal bureaucracy and the limitations of personal freedom that this creates. Whether or not you agree with the principles of limited government, the evidence is overwhelming that federal agencies like FEMA did practically nothing to help the victims of Katrina in the immediate days after the disaster. You know who helped the people? The products of efficient capitalist models: WalMart, Home Depot, and Lowes. They donated truck loads of food, water, and supplies when FEMA wasn't even there. I guess that's Ron Paul's fault too.
If you would like to donate your money to the people of Myanmar go ahead. There is nothing wrong with that. There are plenty of organizations that are more than willing to accept your donation and help those in need.
It is not the place of government to designate who should be helped and who shouldn't. It is your place as an individual to decide where your donations should go. Do not blame Ron Paul for taking care of our tax dollars in a way that you don't like. It's your money, do with it what you will. Our government is too busy trying to build nations in places that it doesn't belong and killing our own for purposes that I can not even imagine!
If you have a problem with taxes and how they are spent, maybe you should think about taking away their ability to tax us unfairly so you can donate even more to the charity of your choice. That's what all of us should do. You are an individual. You can do what you wish in this country. At least that's what we were told.
First get your facts right! The UN (with the highest official estimate) say close to 100,000 could be the final number of dead in Myanmar. Most others are saying less than half of that. NOT 1 million.
Katrina... Uh the government did an aweful job of providing aid.
FEMA IS NO RED CROSS. Please do your research! FEMA = scary
FEMA will be the main tool to abuse free people in the US when martial law is declaired. Spend a little time researching Katrina for real. Don't just take what FOX told you about how FEMA rescued everyone. FEMA caged free people like slaves, then gave them half rate aid. My wife went to New Orleans last year to volunteer, two years later and $100 + billion in Federal funds.... and well she spent the better part 10 days just picking up trash and debris.
Katrina is the perfect example of how Ron Paul is right about this stuff. The majority of real cleanup and rebuilding has been done by private groups and charities. Donations to private groups like the Red Cross came to almost $5 billion(and counting). Way over half of what FEMA was allocated for this storm. Then that lesser amount of money when used by the Red Cross, and others, went much much much further than the $8 billion FEMA squandered.
Socialism always leads a country down hill. Learn your history, the more governments do to control everything and build an empire the closer they get to total failure.
Lastly Ron Paul does not support a do nothing Government. He just supports one that does what is supposed to in a democratic Republic.
PROVE YOUR CLAIM. Show readers anywhere where Paul has said anything AT ALL about how he does not believe in accepting charity or aid from a foriegn nation if we needed it in an emergency? The Myanmar Government is refusing aid. Ron Pual is not opposed to charity. However he does strongly oppose continual handouts to governments all over the world from your and my paycheck.
Lastly, Ron Paul "stands in the way" of nothing in our government. He is one seat holder. What is he standing in the way of? Did he hold a gun to everyones head on Capitol Hill and make them not save everyone in Myanmar? Your very poorly laid out arguement seems to imply that you are just a troll. Well pat yourself on your back... you made a few Paulies waist some time punching keys.
Seems to me Ron Paul has the best interest in the People and their Gov. He was not turning his back on them...
Ron Paul spokeswoman Rachel Mills said the congressman objected to a sentence in the resolution calling on Burma's ruling generals to postpone a scheduled referendum in order to concentrate their resources on disaster assistance. That referendum, intended simply to solidify the junta's grip on the country, was held May 10 -- three days before the House vote.
http://www.washingtonindependent.com/view/ron-paul-warns-burma
Truemensa
" You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom."
~Clarence Darrow~
" It Becomes A Contest Of Power; Those Who Have Money And Those Who Have People~
We Have Nothing But People. "
~Saul Alinsk
This article is an unsubstantiated and irrational attack on Ron Paul. The author blames Ron Paul for the cyclone related deaths in Myanmar. As if a single congressman out of 535 could have any effect on the situation in Myanmar. But the author places no blame on the government of Myanmar for blocking food supplies from the US and keeping aid workers away. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCdLP1kN0Ac
I believe Ron Paul’s approach to the situation in Myanmar would be to encourage people to open their hearts and their wallets and send contributions to the Red Cross or other charitable organization involved in the relief effort. But he would not take the hard earned tax dollars from people who earned it and give it to someone else.
After the 2004 tsunami, many people including myself sent contributions to help with the relief effort in Indonesia. The Red Cross alone received over ½ billion dollars in contributions. According to their website;
“Through the generosity of its supporters the American Red Cross received about $581 million in
contributions to respond to the tsunami and consequent long term recovery efforts. As of
November 30, 2007, more than $340 million had been expended with the remaining funds
supporting long-term recovery efforts.”
It seems that was very successful. And it was done through the generosity of people around the world. Not through government confiscation of tax dollars.
Actually, since government doesn't have anything that it didn't collectively steal, and since the only power it has flows from the barrel of a gun, the ones with blood on their hands are those who advocate that government do *anything* (like continuing to steal, granting monopoly privileges to big business, et. al., etc.).
If the government of Myanmar would just *stop* doing, aid would be arriving.
Hey, I'll pitch in a few dollars, but how can I make sure that it doesn't go into the pocket of a government thug?
Somehow, taking a natural and *internal* (To Myanmar) disaster and placing it on the hands of Ron Paul is a pretty far stretch.
The horrific events in Myanmar certainly highlight the political problems and the brutal regime issues that arise in such an oppressive military government.
The stance the Ron Paul takes (in my understanding) is that aiding such disasters is first and foremost a personal and moral obligation that is left to the discretion of the individual, not a collectively enforced redistribution of wealth from a government tax.
I personally agree with the good Doctor in the emphasis on *personal responsibility* --- If something happens that *you personally* find requiring assistance, then take the personal initiative to donate your time or money or both. Requesting the "government" to take money from the population at large and redistribute it is not only extremely inefficient, but completely against the Constitution of the United States..
I would invite anyone who wants to understand this better to read the account of
the famed Col. David Crockett from Tennessee: http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm
seems like you all miss the point completely. it is not our governments job to steal money from one to give to another. historically disaster aid has always been more forthcoming from from the population than from government going back thousands of years. but even more recently, after the tsunamis a couple years ago, the american people gave more in charity funds to those victims than all world governments combined. and after all shouldnt that be the ideal situation-- voluntary charity rather than forced. besides why dont you name one government program that is run more effectively than has been or could be run by the private sector
I would rather live free and have to take care of myself during hard times than be in chains by a federal government that will come pick me up when I get a boo-boo.
-Miss Green
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."
under the assumption that government programs accoplish their intent. In this you are mistaken. And kind of a sucker.
Go read von Mises.
Prachanda,
I have to wonder why you believe it is the responsibility of the U.S. government to fund such relief efforts abroad? I agree with you that this is a humanitarian effort, but step back and look at the bigger humanitarian crisis this contributes to.
Let's take a nation with a failing economy, and charge its government with supplying humanitarian aid to another country. At that point in time, it stopped existing as a humanitarian effort and has become completely poilticized... nevermind the fact that such aid and effort is not a Constitutionally defined role of our federal government.
Gil Guillory (LewRockwell.com): "The doctrine of enumerated powers is that "the power the people give to government, to exercise on their behalf, is strictly limited" and in the Constitution, they are listed in Article I, Section 8. Nowhere in this section is a power granted to conduct humanitarian interventions."
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed." -- Declaration of Independence
Now, your assertion that Ron Paul has blood on his hands suggests that he does not want the people of Burma or Katrina to be aided, when nothing can be farther from the truth -- which is that he believes in human life and humanitarian efforts -- but at a privatized level.
How much of the millions of dollars the Myanmars need have you raised through humanitarian aid efforts? YOU have a responsibility to provide that humanitarian aid, not the government... That's the point and that's the foundation of Paul's stance. How much did the Burmese (Myanmarans) government give to the U.S. when Katrina struck? According to you, they should have been gloablly responsible for our suffering too... but you would never say that out loud - especially not right now.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... but not the right to expect that the government will give them that... In fact, they have the right to believe the government won't interfere with it. Do you see the distinction? It's about non-interventionism, and responsible governmental policies in the best interest of the United States -- not the world (I assure you the "world" doesn't have the U.S. best interests at heart).
Do you remember what happened after Hurricane Katrina hit? The shocking incompetence of FEMA? Yes, it was shocking, even to me, a libertarian who has no faith whatsoever in the capability of government agencies. Even I did not expect that the U.S. government would be unable to deliver food and drinking water to people who were stranded in New Orleans.
Even WalMart, the company that everybody hates, responded quicker and more effectively than FEMA. Critics of WalMart say that it was a publicity stunt. I'm sure that publicity was one of the motivating factors behind the company's philanthropy, but therein lies a significant difference between the public and private sectors (even if it is semi-private...as I'm sure a corporation the size of WalMart is in bed with the government)--as long as the corporation's customer base consists of private individuals, it will respond to public opinion and the demands of its customers. Government, on the other hand, is impervious to public opinion.
Supposedly, the public should be able to exert pressure on the federal government through their Congressional representatives. But that is analogous to asking Walmart's stockholders to determine whether or not people will continue to buy from WalMart regardless of the company's image.
Ron Paul opposes the federal government's involvement in things like disaster relief, not because he thinks that victims of natural disasters should be left to die, but because 1- forcing individuals to pay for these services is ethically wrong and 2- government bureaucracies are incompetent and cannot be relied on when actual needs arise. Delegating responsibilities, such as disaster relief, to the government breeds dependence on the government, and this kind of dependence is dangerous precisely because of the kind of thing that happened after Hurrican Katrina.
Had people not relied on FEMA to help them, state and local governments would have had better disaster response plans in place.
Instead of relying on the U.S. government to help the people of Myanmar, the American people should contribute to private charities and NGOs that are involved in international humanitarian efforts. That way, no one has to be forced to pay for a cause they do not deem worthwhile. A shift from government aid to private aid will also create a competitive market in charities and humanitarian organizations because individual donors will be able to decide which organization to give to based on past performance and efficiency.
You are attempting to attach a nature to Dr. Paul that simply is not true.
Your focus on what the government can do to help Myanmar is far from where your focus should actually be.
1. By allowing our government to give aid to the faction that currently oppresses the people of Myanmar, we give them the ability to further subjugate their people. The controlling faction of Myanmar has shown that they must be the one's to distribute the aid so that they may appear to be the god-send, furthering their ability to control the people. Though our government's help may feed these people for the next month, a year from now they will be no better off.
2. By also forcing our government to be the aid provider, we weaken those in our own country that are working hard and diligently to provide for their own families. If money and aid is sent to Myanmar, the taxpayers of our nation are the ones that foot the bill. This money does not just come from nowhere, it is produced from the blood and sweat of the laborers, the citizens, of the US.
I am sure that Dr. Paul has no problem with sending aid to the people of Myanmar, but it must come from those that voluntarily can give. It is our government that restricts our people from helping with humanitarian missions to other countries and regions. It is the controls that are currently set forth that do not allow us to help others to the degree that it may actually be possible.
You will notice that in the areas where individuals and organizations were allowed to conduct their humanitarian missions, their giving and help was far greater than that provided by the US government.
Dr. Paul's argument is not that we should not help these people. His argument is most likely that we should allow American's to help these people and that the federal government only hampers their ability to help.
Jeremy W. Cady
Candidate for MO State Representative, District 138
http://www.jeremycady.com
DON'T FEED THE TROLL!
What do you mean don't feed the troll? Are these forums not for intelligent debate?
Go stand in the corner with Prachanda and have an intelligent debate.
very good advice. i second that motion.
Prachanda, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this site is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Regards,
Ryan McAdams
haha that was off of billy madison
Prachanda, that's an interesting comment. There are lots of terrible tragedys in the world. Are the americans sopposed to be forced to help everyone? I agree with the majority of people who say there are good charities that deal with these situations and our government has no right to distribute the american peoples tax money to save the world. You really have to look at the bigger picture. If you personally want to help then help. That's what is so great about america....freedom to do with your money as you please. If this right is taken away then what do we have left? Certainly not our freedoms. And further more, if everyone thought like you...whoops...we do have people who think like you....our federal government. Good job. You are joining the ranks of the bilderburg group. Maybe they will invite you to there next meeting. LMW
You sir......are an idiot. People like you are precisely why this sight was created. Uneducated people who make uneducated comments on subjects they obviously know nothing about. And then they unfortunately us this ignorance to base thier decisions on, like who should run this country. The mere thought that Ron Paul has anything to do with this disaster or the fact that he doesn't care about people that are dying is lunacy. Ron Paul does not advocate that we dismantle all charities for other nations or even our own for that matter. Where do you get this stuff? He merely proposes that we stop using tax payers money to fund aid to foriegn countrys. There are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of charitable groups that help in situations like this. If you even watch the mainstream media a little bit (which is full of lies) you would still see that the aid that is being sent there is being hoarded by that country's corrupt government and not getting to the people. So......Do you propose that we pass legislation allowing aid funded by your tax dollars (and mine) be funneled to that corrupt government as well? If so......count me out. In fact...... Why don't you just write them a fucking check and send it directly to the government. While you have your check book out go ahead and write some checks for the people still suffering in our own country from Katrina. A disaster that was supposedly handled by FEMA......... hmmm...... isn't that one of the government agencys that Paul would like to see revamped? I wonder why. READ.......EDUCATE YOURSELF......PLEASE! Before the whole world is filled with idiots like you.
I don't think name calling is really necessary regardless of whether you disagree or not. Besides it takes credibility away from your argument, which I thought was decent. Prachanda is outnumbered and everyone is already ganging up on him, we should be thanking him for giving us an opportunity to actually debate rather than just agree with each other all the time.
YOU good sir, should be ashamed of yourself.
go back and read my comments --- I think they will help you
prachanda conducted today a little test case with this post.
For once, I think we agree. :)
-Miss Green
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it."
and yet you decided to feed him anyways. maybe you did in fact miss my point.
Prechanda...
A Human Problem.?..Paultards?...lol
like the Millions of Iraqis the Us has killed since we started bobing them 20 years ago...
lol..
like Sudan-Darfur, where China owns a mass amount of oil, as well as our economy...lol
Callous, human apathy,this that....
Well, I guess under all the ideologies, it comes down to this:
Individuality vs Collectivism.....
And in short, I think individualism is always better than government controlled collectivism...
I mean, i dont think its anyones right to force ME to pay for anything...
Im no Puritan, but what ever happened to the individual willing collectivism....sustaining his and her own community...without a big brother to tell you what to do...without the 6 out of 10 corporate spoon fed majority to tell you what to eat, or drink, or pay for..
oh yeah...i remember what happened to individual responsibility, charity, good will....
COLLECTIVISM!!!!!!!
You should go around and start a Myammar foundation, stop waisting your Reightous ideology on paultards..lol...
grow up, change the world through your Collectivism, not through government force....
I reccomend you Youtube Collectivism Vs Individualism.. I think you may realize that objectivity, whethr mine or yours, is not so easy to rely upon...
ANY GOVERNMENT BIG ENOUGH TO GIVE YOU EVERYTHING YOU WANT IS BIG ENOUGH TO TAKE IT ALL AWAY..and thats happened before!
I think thought criminal gave a brief summary of what we all stand for....except he didn't touch on the fact that the government needs to PROTECT US, which might mean protecting us from cyclones created by big industry and to help us when that happens. other than that i completely agree with thought criminal, sometimes you need to make SMALL exceptions to protect us from global warming
Prachanda, I suggest you check out the writings of Thomas Sowell on the disparate effects natural disasters have on free countries versus countries with authoritarian states.
Countries with free markets (such as Ron Paul stands for) and the resultant prosperity have relatively low death tolls from natural disasters because their infrastructure minimizes the after-effects of the disaster. In such cases there is little or no "need" for government intervention; and when the State does take charge after such an event, you often wind up with Katrina-type fiasco.
By contrast, poor countries with unfree economies (and Myanmar is at the very top of this list--see the various Economic Freedom of the World indices published over the last couple of decades by various groups) have no capacity to deal with the shock caused by natural disasters, and people continue to die by the thousands days and weeks after the actual event.
The culpability of the government of Burma/Myanmar lies in its generations-long impoverishment of its people that has prevented them from building the infrastructure to cope with such disasters. Had the government of Myanmar followed a Ron-Paul-style economic policy since its independence in the 1940s, the death toll from the recent cyclones would be far lower than it is today, and we wouldn't be having this discussion about the necessity of a massive relief effort.