Ron Paul On The Record

[quote]pookie wrote:
orion wrote:
It is not bad for business per se, it is bad for people who grew up thinking than running a business means lobbying in Washington.

This is true for Oil, Defense, Pharma and Agriculture companies plus all the other companies receiving subsidies in any way, shape or form.

All the banks that get bailed out by the Feds right now…

You would not want them to face the consequences of their bad decisions, would you?

Big Business does not want free markets, they wanted government guaranteed profits.

But by doing so, you’re creating artificial market conditions. Eventually, reality will catch up and you’ll get a catastrophic correction. The more you try to interfere with market forces, the more you’ll get punished eventually. I guess it’s the “eventually” that encourages people to do it anyway, they hope it’s another generation that’ll deal with the blowback.
[/quote]

Exactly.

That is the reason we are at least as much against corporate welfare as we are against any other (state sponsored) form.

I just explained why big business is not necessarily pro-market.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Things would be so different under a gold standard, under a truly free market economy. What we have now is a product of a century’s worth of statism.

The standard of living could be raised to new heights. Death and disease could be overcome with technological advances. Humanity could enter a new age of prosperity. All of this could result from capitalism, if we let it.

Dude, you know I’ve been trying to be pretty reasonable in my criticism of Ron Paul and his believers.

However, when you start trumpeting the salvation of humankind and the world because of the policies Ron Paul is talking about you sound bat-shit crazy!

It doesn’t matter who is elected, the world is not going to turn into freaking Shangri-la. Sorry.[/quote]

No, but the process of capital deepening and specialisation is going to speed up and this is the very core of civilisation itself.

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Is it a change for change’s sake? I just don’t get it.[/quote]

I can only spitball at an answer, but this is what I think it is.

Lefties love and trust authority in all aspects of public governance - up until the time a war occurs. They prefer a penetrating and tedious regulatory state, infinite government programs, and a judiciary that accumulates power at the expense of the democratic process. Government - especially “big government” is worthwhile and good, the more, the better, and those people in power at the highest levels can be trusted to do all that is right and necessary. In peacetime.

Right up until a war begins. Then lefties change in dramatic fashion. Government is suddenly run by evil men trying to consolidate power (at worst) or they are suddenly paternalistic and overbearing (at best). All the love and trust for an overarching government disappears the moment a bomb is dropped - then lefties are instantly proto-anarchists, raging against the establishment, any kind of authority, and adopting new devotion to words like “liberty” when it was rarely in their vocabulary before.

Ron Paul is doing some raging against the “establishment”, as a libertarian. Suddenly, as we are in wartime, Paul is saying all the right things about “the people in power”. Lefties - for now - are temporarily the self-sworn enemies of those in power, and Paul gives them a champion, because, being a libertarian, Paul definitely does not like “big government”.

If this were a peacetime election in 2008, the lefties would be raging against Paul, the man that wants to completely dismantle anything federal that looks like a Euro-ish welfare state.

Lefties - curiously no fans of actual democracy, despite their rhetoric - move from one extreme to the other, with little time in between at the points of moderation in the middle.

That is my take on it.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I can only spitball at an answer, but this is what I think it is.

Lefties love and trust authority in all aspects of public governance - up until the time a war occurs. They prefer a penetrating and tedious regulatory state, infinite government programs, and a judiciary that accumulates power at the expense of the democratic process. Government - especially “big government” is worthwhile and good, the more, the better, and those people in power at the highest levels can be trusted to do all that is right and necessary. In peacetime.

Right up until a war begins. Then lefties change in dramatic fashion. Government is suddenly run by evil men trying to consolidate power (at worst) or they are suddenly paternalistic and overbearing (at best). All the love and trust for an overarching government disappears the moment a bomb is dropped - then lefties are instantly proto-anarchists, raging against the establishment, any kind of authority, and adopting new devotion to words like “liberty” when it was rarely in their vocabulary before.

Ron Paul is doing some raging against the “establishment”, as a libertarian. Suddenly, as we are in wartime, Paul is saying all the right things about “the people in power”. Lefties - for now - are temporarily the self-sworn enemies of those in power, and Paul gives them a champion, because, being a libertarian, Paul definitely does not like “big government”.

If this were a peacetime election in 2008, the lefties would be raging against Paul, the man that wants to completely dismantle anything federal that looks like a Euro-ish welfare state.

Lefties - curiously no fans of actual democracy, despite their rhetoric - move from one extreme to the other, with little time in between at the points of moderation in the middle.

That is my take on it.[/quote]

That is absolutely hilarious! Both the zany lefties around here and the radical right need to stop creating comic book fantasy caricatures of the “other side”. It’s not healthy.

What the Media Should Report About the Ames Straw Poll (Statistical Analysis of Straw Poll Results)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1881047/posts

[quote]Mike Huckabee more than doubled his expected CNA and is obviously the true winner at the Straw Poll. Brownback and Tancredo had similar jumps but coming in third and fourth is about as good as kissing your sister.

Ron Paul showed a 350% improvement over his CNA at the straw poll and is clearly the second winner at the event. It is easy to show such a marked up win when you are only averaging about 2-3% in the polls but his polling average has been 50% lower than Duncan Hunter yet he wiped the floor of Hunter by a factor of 8. He had a raw net gain in percentage more than Tom Tancredo.

Ron Paul supporters should be very proud of his performance here. It may be reported as a horrendous performance because he came in fifth place but when you consider he was not even included in many polls just a few months ago and his poor polling numbers thus far have been keeping him down, 10% here is great.[/quote]

I can see the reasoning, and partially agree, but I am disturbed by the fact that in the days and weeks leading up the poll, everybody in the Ron camp was talking about a “second place finish”. I didn’t hear anyone say, “he could pull off top-5”. People were talking first or second place. Obviously, it didn’t exactly go down like that, and it’s no small disappointment.

The intended goal of Ames was to catapult Ron Paul firmly and indisputably into the top tier. “The MSM will no longer be able to ignore him” was the popular sentiment. Unfortunately, because he placed 5th, they can and will continue to ignore him for a while longer. Thus, mission NOT accomplished.

It’s true that Paul’s campaign did exceedingly well in a cost analysis versus the other candidates, but that only takes into account official campaign spending. What about independent spending on the part of his supporters? When you add that into the equation, his lead over the others diminishes.

There was a huge, independent effort organized by groups across the country to get him to do well in that Poll. That is not reflected in the official campaign spending figures. In my opinion, they should have taken a cue from Romney/Huckabee and dropped more cash.

He is now in a position where he simply must stand out in the coming debates and basically hope that his competitors screw up. The media is going to be talking about Romney and Huckabee all the time now.

Next debate is on the 20th. That’s next Monday. Only the “big 3” and Paul will be in attendance. Should be the most interesting debate yet.

Paul just won a Straw Poll in Gaston County, NC

http://bhday.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/ron-paul-wins-gaston-county-straw-poll/

[quote]No one watches Fox News any more. They’re open-borders shamnesty trolls (except Chuck Krauthammer), a love-nest of Juliebots, Hannity calls us kooks and sets up a rival forum site for his little cult, BORe is calling us a hate site. And John Lott’s recent book indicates they donate just as heavily to Dims as any other libmedia organization. And Murdoch is giving big to Hitlery.

I guess BORe is right. I’ve started to hate Fox News.[/quote]

[quote]vroom wrote:

That is absolutely hilarious! Both the zany lefties around here and the radical right need to stop creating comic book fantasy caricatures of the “other side”. It’s not healthy.[/quote]

Poor Vroom? Still suffering from a “no one takes you seriously” deficit?

Which part is not true? You’ll notice I didn’t say liberal, I said left-wing - and there is a difference. And, in which case, lefties most certainly fit the description I suggested, as they wade in extremes.

How else would explain lefties’ zeal for a man that would lay waste to the federal administrative welfare state?

As for the Left being “undemocratic”, the dirty little secret is - it’s true.

[quote]vroom wrote:
That is absolutely hilarious! Both the zany lefties around here and the radical right need to stop creating comic book fantasy caricatures of the “other side”. It’s not healthy.[/quote]

“It’s not healthy”, says the one with a fence picket jammed up his ass.

Why am I not surprised?

Funny how Ron Paul seems to appeal to everyone, but then has those same persons asking why “the other side” likes him too.

I guess that’s why we don’t see honest politicians with integrity that often: They’re too confusing.

Seriously, my guess for his almost universal appeal: He’s for freedom, both economic and social. Conservatives probably like him more for the economic liberty he promises, while liberals probably tend to concentrate on the social side.

Liberty rocks.

As an aside: Assuming a miracle occurs and he does become president, how much of his ideas could he actually implement? Wouldn’t his presidency be a long fight with Congress (assuming most elected congressman won’t want to bite the hands that feed them?)

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Poor Vroom? Still suffering from a “no one takes you seriously” deficit?
[/quote]

Aren’t you tired of hurling your little insults yet?

[quote]Which part is not true? You’ll notice I didn’t say liberal, I said left-wing - and there is a difference. And, in which case, lefties most certainly fit the description I suggested, as they wade in extremes.

How else would explain lefties’ zeal for a man that would lay waste to the federal administrative welfare state?

As for the Left being “undemocratic”, the dirty little secret is - it’s true.[/quote]

Part of the problem is the terminology. According to some “liberal” as Rainjack mentioned just recently, now implies a love of big government and all the other ills you care to lump on the left.

As someone on the left, who does not appreciate entitlement programs, I don’t know that there is any room within all these labels for my stance.

By the way, anyone who isn’t willing to give credence to the views of the “other side” is undemocratic. That seems to apply just as well to the right as to the left. One person, one vote, and then a whole lot of bellyaching about the results.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
“It’s not healthy”, says the one with a fence picket jammed up his ass.

Why am I not surprised?
[/quote]

How long do you intend to continue making a fool of yourself?

[quote]vroom wrote:
As someone on the left, who does not appreciate entitlement programs, I don’t know that there is any room within all these labels for my stance.
[/quote]

If I am not mistaken, you are in favor of government sponsored, “free” health care - no?

How do you reconcile being in favor of the largest gov’t handout possible, and saying you are not in favor of entitlement programs?

If I am wrong - I apologize, but I’m pretty sure you were/are against privatizing Soc Sec, and in favor of free health care.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I’m just thinking out loud here - but if a bunch of conservatives were having the political orgasms over a promising republican like you guys are displaying over this Ron Paul guy - you’d laugh us off the forum.

I think Ron Paul has some very, very good ideas. But I’m not creamin’ my jeans over the guy.

What gives?

He is a promising Republican.

SO you guys are republican if they are promising?

You are a socialist, no?

Why are you so excited over a man that will strip government of all the frills, and future frills?

Welfare?

Healthcare?

How do you reconcile this? [/quote]

It’s not about supporting a party. It’s about supporting the man and his ideas. Dr. Paul is the only candidate that stands for the original American values (which have long since been forgotten) I have come to admire.

And Orion is most certainly not a socialist!

[quote]lixy wrote:
It’s not about supporting a party. It’s about supporting the man and his ideas. Dr. Paul is the only candidate that stands for the original American values (which have long since been forgotten) I have come to admire.

And Orion is most certainly not a socialist![/quote]

Answer the question. Don’t try to rephrase it, or bring your ignorance into it.

Paul stands for everything that is polar opposite to the big government, free ride liberals.

There is a gap between the rhetoric they support and the candidate they swoon over.

Now run along. US politics is not something you should be opining on.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
If I am not mistaken, you are in favor of government sponsored, “free” health care - no?

How do you reconcile being in favor of the largest gov’t handout possible, and saying you are not in favor of entitlement programs?

If I am wrong - I apologize, but I’m pretty sure you were/are against privatizing Soc Sec, and in favor of free health care. [/quote]

I’m not sure I voiced much about social security. I might even be against privatizing it, but something I did suggest, if you remember, is that it could be ever so slightly de-indexed from inflation so that over the course of a generation or two that it would simply become irrelevant.

That would imply complete elimination, but over time instead of all at once. Perhaps the situation is getting too dire to be able to use such a strategy now.

I live in it, free health care, and it has it’s ups and downs. As something that is “free” it is indeed an entitlement and that leads to all kinds of abuse. I don’t like the absolute entitlement aspect of it at all.

However, and this is where the much hated thinking tree comes into play, I think you can greatly improve things by removing the entitlement aspect. Just like with the social security aspect I’d prefer to move slowly in an appropriate direction instead of immediately imposing an ideological solution.

Perhaps, issue an “invoice” based on our equivalent of a social security number. At year end, when you file your taxes, the “bills” are waived to some degree if your income is low enough. I know, a pain in the ass, administration, etc, etc, but it’s already being tracked to this degree and it stops people from thinking it is “free”.

So, that would be a baby step… but one that could possibly start saving us an assload of money. Emergency services are the most expensive and the ones that everyone uses because they are conveniently available 24x7.

Honestly though, and here’s ammo for you if you want to play the black and white game, I also don’t think that we need to live our lives as a health lottery. I’d like to find a way to ensure that health care is available to those that need it, though “free” is an extreme that I’m not in favor of.

Anyway, similarly, I’m strongly in favor of workfare instead of welfare. It’s offensive that people start to feel entitled to sit on their asses, have babies, and put the bill in my pocket. Put up a day care and force these people to break rocks all day for minimum wage or less. I don’t care what the work is, but no work, no pay.

Again, I know it’s a “program”, but it’s one that pushes people away instead of fostering entitlement. Entitlement is a huge mistake and needs to be avoided at all costs. After that we can fight about whether programs should even exist at all.

I want self-limiting programs and “just enough” government, as opposed to big nanny-state government looking after everything. I’ve been reading some liberal party material here where I live and the grassroots people preface all their statements with “the government should do this” and “the government should do that” and it disgusts me.

Unfortunately, as usual, I fall in the middle, which seems to be the thinking-tree way.

[quote]vroom wrote:

Aren’t you tired of hurling your little insults yet?[/quote]

It wasn’t an insult - I actually believe you suffer from thinking no one takes you seriously. So I consider it a factual statement.

[quote]Part of the problem is the terminology. According to some “liberal” as Rainjack mentioned just recently, now implies a love of big government and all the other ills you care to lump on the left.

As someone on the left, who does not appreciate entitlement programs, I don’t know that there is any room within all these labels for my stance. [/quote]

Strangely, this wasn’t about you or your personal predilections. It was about a generalization that is quite accurate - the Left is a fan of all things that typically fall under the umbrella of “big government”.

It was not referencing you or your “stance”. Some part of the body politic loves entitlement programs and their expansion - and we all know that generally that’s the Left. What you personally believe is irrelevant to the generalization.

So, while your conceit has driven you to type “I don’t know that there is any room within all these labels for my stance”, understand no one was discussing “your stance”.

Actually no, that is incorrect - you aren’t antidemocratic even if you hate the other side’s viewpoints (all of them) but still give them a place in the democratic arena to try and win the day with their ideas. If you allow even ideas you despise a chance at winning in the democratic arena, you are a fan of democracy.

What is undemocratic is a devotion to taking more and more political issues away from the democratic arena and tranferring them to decidedly undemocratic institutions - which is all part of the “progressive agenda” of the Left.

And, while the Right certainly has its share of distaste for the “other side’s” view - no matter how much venom is released, where on the Right is there a push to take all these political issues out of the realm of the democratic arena?

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Specifically, why are those of you that - for the last 4 years - are decidedly liberal, big government program supporters now supporting a guy that wants to strip the size of government down to a bare minimum?

It don’t add up. [/quote]

An awesome question that really forces us to get down to brass tacks. I feel like this question was directed at me…?

I do consider myself “liberal” in the live and let live sense and always have. I think this was known as classical liberalism; however, it is the bastardization of the word “liberal” by socialism that changed it to a more statist understanding of solving issues of “equality”. Of course, FDR helped to change the identity of Democrats to that of a liberal party with his New Deal program.

The distinction between conservative and liberal is fundamentally flawed in that it doesn’t address the issues of statism v. non-statism. Conservatives are traditionally supposed to reject big government; where and how that changed I do not know.

All I know is that conservatism to me is a defense of traditional values–which have been incorrectly defined by some as religious traditions. In the end both parties ended up entrenching them selves in big government to help protect their views and opinions.

For consistency’s sake I have to reject both philosophies. I cannot allow government to control social issues such as marriage and what might be perceived as religious opinion so why then should I support it to help people gain access to equal rights–shouldn’t we all be equal under the law and isn’t that the only thing that should matter?

I think Ron Paul addresses this issue quite well. I have heard him state numerous times that people will automatically assume you are against certain groups if you don’t support legislation that gives those groups protection.

I think this idea needs to be changed fundamentally. Government should only seek to protect the natural rights of individuals as a whole and keep to the rule of law provided under a constitution–that is libertarianism in the strictest sense.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
How do you reconcile being in favor of the largest gov’t handout possible, and saying you are not in favor of entitlement programs?[/quote]

You can be in favor of some programs because you think the issue at hand is an important basic human right.

Of course, it’s not true in the strictest sense that someone is “entitled” to being healthy. But I think, personally, that if a society can afford it, then it should do everything it can to ensure that all it’s members are healthy and taken care of if they’re not, regardless of their ability to afford the care.

I’m not in favor of the government providing guaranteed jobs, or cars or houses. But it should, again, within the possible means, insure you’re healthy enough to get a job, work and then get your house and your car.

It’s basically a value issue. No one will think it fair that a child is born sick in a poor family; but do you let him fend for himself, or do accept an additional tax burden so that he gets nursed back to health and has a fair chance at life.

So basically, I can reconcile wanting the least government intervention possible with being in favor of universal health care because I believe it’s the right thing to do for a society that considers itself civilized and humane.