Ron Paul On The Record

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
601

[quote]pookie wrote:
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?

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.
[/quote]

There is of course the problem that everyone has a favorite entitlement programm and they add up quickly…

602

But, if I am reading him correctly, Paul is against anything like universal healthcare. In fact - I am pretty sure he is against any governmental action that is not explicitly allowed for in the constitution.

That means no welfare, no dept. of education, no EPA, no HUD, no social security, and no free doctors.

603

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
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”.
[/quote]

Perhaps you should pay attention. Rainjack was asking for explanations concerning certain personalities. I tried to offer one. Get off your high horse and settle down. Either that, or maybe the two of you should get together and agree on terminology so that discussion will be easier.

Well, Mr Pedantic, giving them their place involves discussing them rationally without mischaracterizing them. It’s rare these days. As I said, one person, one vote, endless bellyaching.

Also, do you consider me to belong in this comic book Left you have created? Attempting to marginalize everyone and discount their views is not part of considering the opponents views. Merely engaging in ideological combat does not cut it.

[quote]
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. [/quote]

Perhaps you should outline which items “the comic book Left” villain you describe wants to remove from the democratic arena. Are you describing things like the FDA, the FCC, free trade disagreement arbitrage and so forth, or what?

604

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Lefties love and trust authority in all aspects of public governance - up until the time a war occurs.[/quote]

No this is not true. Many people on the right expect the government to step in to protect their interests too. Abortion? Defense of Marriage? Many of us that have trusted the government only did so because we had never been given reason to not trust them when they say they can do the things we want them to.

I think Katrina (and more recently the Minneapolis bridge collapse) helped some of us realize that big government isn’t the answer to all of life’s woes–in fact, I am now positive it is the antithesis of it because the gov’t has no accountability which is the only thing that keeps people on their toes.

Lefties, as you lovingly call us, primarily agree on one thing and that is that all people deserve dignity. Though, I absolutely agree that the focus of these issues need to be addressed in the private sector and not public institutions.

Would people still insist that someone like Ralph Nader is a loony leftist if he did not try to influence consumer practices through government intervention? Probably not because I think we understand he does truly care about real people and their rights as consumers.

605

[quote]vroom wrote:

Perhaps you should pay attention. Rainjack was asking for explanations concerning certain personalities. I tried to offer one. Get off your high horse and settle down. Either that, or maybe the two of you should get together and agree on terminology so that discussion will be easier.[/quote]

And I replied directly to Rainjack regarding his question. Vroom’s opinions/stances never entered my equation - I never addressed you, mentioned you, or even thought of you.

You tried to offer an explanation. I offered an explanation. Don’t like it? Too bad - I don’t consult “Vroom’s Verbose Dictionary of Political Terminology” when I write, and if my post was directed to Rainjack, perhaps you should consider not chirping in if I am talking about something different than you would like.

If Rainjack doesn’t like my terminology, he can tell me. But - that is between me and him.

The Left loves entitlements and government programs. Nothing new there. You don’t like entitlements and government programs? Super duper - but irrelevant. I was not talking about you.

Well, you continue to misuse the term “pedantic”, but not surprising - my point was that allowng an idea to remain at the democratic table is evidence that you respect the idea and the importance of the system. Nothing pedantic about that - it goes straight to the heart of what makes a democracy work.

Well, first of all, it is not a “comic book Left” - it may not be the one you want, but my description is accurate.

That said, do I think you are part of it? Not in a pure sense. But I haven’t put much thought into it. I am not sure even you know what you believe, so me venturing a guess would be even more of shot in the dark.

I don’t even know what this means, but I do know that political debate is a contact sport - and you can’t seem to make up your mind if you like the rough-and-tumble or you want a tea party. I can disagree with someone on politics a great deal and not make it personal - and arguing with vigor isn’t “marginalizing” or “discounting their views”. sniff

Me and Fighting Irish disagree on tons of stuff. Me and Pookie disagree on tons of stuff. I like both of them - they are bright and always make me think hard, even when I am in complete opposition to something they are saying. That is what makes it fun - I don’t want an echo chamber.

If you think I “marginalize” your views, there is a simple explanation - I think your views are marginal.

Let’s see - the administrative/welfare state, a “progressive” judiciary, and international arrangements that chip away at sovereignty - all of which the Left (comic book or the other kind) all support.

There is nothing particularly novel about pointing these out - lefties call for more power to these institutions all the time and they are proud of that fact - but let’s just call it as it is: taking more and more power away from the “people” and placing it in the hands of small entities that are less and less accountable to the voting public.

That is, definitionally, undemocratic.

606

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
rainjack wrote:

Is it a change for change’s sake? I just don’t get it.

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]

I think your premise may be flawed. You’ve described a pretty extreme version of the left that probably only describes 5-10% of the population. Is there any evidence that those people, the most extreme that want a vast, borg-like government, support Paul at all?

Anyway, I think the answer is more simple than you guys make it out to be. He appeals to some people on the left because he is extremely socially liberal. I think it really is that simple.

The zeal is based on the fact that he is very straight talking, has a clean record and seems to have a lot of integrity. I can tell you personally it is refreshing to me to have a candidate that actually seems to be saying what he honestly believes without running it through a popularity filter.

Why does he appeal to some people on the right, when he is so socially liberal? Probably because he is small-government fiscal conservative, and again the zeal is based on what I wrote above. He appeals in a broad way to both sides (one side fiscally, one side socially) and is willing to take those viewpoints to the extreme.

I think you guys are complicating what is actually pretty simple.

607

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

No this is not true. Many people on the right expect the government to step in to protect their interests too. Abortion? Defense of Marriage?[/quote]

I never said the Right were anarchists.

But don’t be silly - the rise of “big government” is the creation of the Left. This isn’t new - the Left embraces socialism or at least flirts with it. There is no debate over this point.

You present a false choice. The fact that some conservatives think there should be some level of government doesn’t mean that the Left is not the political movement of overarching, very intrusive government.

So strange, I never mentioned you. I thought you were a raging anarchist, which is the opposite of a state-lovin’ Leftie? It is hard to keep up with your incarnations.

Now, I realize you share a civil libertarianism approach with what we call “the Left”, but if you look at my comments, they are focused on the overriding devotion to statist politics, which you have gone through great pains recently to distance yourself from, so I was not referring to you.

Nor was I spending time on the civil liberties angle - although, increasingly, the Left wants to restrict those at the margin with speech codes, the “fairness doctrine”, and so forth. So I have no idea why you invoked “yourself” in my comments.

The Left puts an awful lot of faith in the government to do all sorts of things. They are the champions of what we know by shorthand as “big government” - this is not news.

608

[quote]rainjack wrote:
But, if I am reading him correctly, Paul is against anything like universal healthcare. In fact - I am pretty sure he is against any governmental action that is not explicitly allowed for in the constitution.

That means no welfare, no dept. of education, no EPA, no HUD, no social security, and no free doctors.
[/quote]

Right, and the monetary system, and whatever else he can get his hands on.

He’s still appealing on topics of social liberties, shrinking government and returning to the constitution.

However, while many want to go in the direction he espouses, I am not certain many would be willing to stick with him to the endpoint. He’d be an easy political target for anyone that believes strongly in any of the causes you mention.

Personally, I’d point out that he is once again representing a single ideology, and I’m not sure any single one has all the answers.

609

[quote]orion wrote:
There is of course the problem that everyone has a favorite entitlement programm and they add up quickly…[/quote]

Well yes, but does the majority want it? If a people think that the government should provide free cars, well then, let them put it in place.

I think that when the costs, and accompanying tax burden, are known, people will not be so eager to ask for their pet entitlements. Or they might still want it, but won’t be able to convince enough of the population to get it voted on.

Health care is a more basic issue. It’s also helped by the fact that most people don’t require expensive and prolonged care, so spreading out the cost is more easily feasible than with, say, guaranteed income or free government provided cars.

You have to be careful that your programs don’t cause all the rich to flee your country. We’ve got a bit of that problem in Quebec, where we have a lot of costly government programs, the highest taxes in North America and an extremely small proportion of very rich and ultra-rich citizens. Almost all the very rich Quebecois I can think of live and do business in the US.

610

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I don’t even know what this means, but I do know that political debate is a contact sport - and you can’t seem to make up your mind if you like the rough-and-tumble or you want a tea party. I can disagree with someone on politics a great deal and not make it personal - and arguing with vigor isn’t “marginalizing” or “discounting their views”. sniff
[/quote]

LOL. No, you aren’t trying to sneak in all kinds childish little insults at all!

Face it, you’ve got a hate-on and can’t control yourself. Don’t worry, you aren’t the only one.

611

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The Left puts an awful lot of faith in the government to do all sorts of things. They are the champions of what we know by shorthand as “big government” - this is not news.[/quote]

Funny, it seems you aren’t actually referring to anyone on this forum. Maybe there is nobody in this comic book left you’ve concocted at all?

612

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
I think you guys are complicating what is actually pretty simple.
[/quote]

I’m not trying to complicate anything. It struck me as odd, and unbalanced that some of the ardent lefties on here are all over Paul’s wang like it was a magic wand.

I have had some very good responses. But it seems that they are willing to overlook a very deep discrepancy between what they have vociferously championed in the past, and who the jizz their jeans for today.

I don’t have a problem with it as - if Paul wins at the hand of disillusioned left and right wingers - it is a very good thing.

613

[quote]Moriarty wrote:

I think your premise may be flawed. You’ve described a pretty extreme version of the left that probably only describes 5-10% of the population. Is there any evidence that those people, the most extreme that want a vast, borg-like government, support Paul at all?[/quote]

You are exactly right, and I did so for a particular reason - we are talking about Ron Paul supporters: a distinct, very small percentage of extremists (that is, Leftists that have joined his ranks).

RJ was asking about people who support Paul. It is precisely that “extreme version of the Left” I was referring to - as I said to Vroom, not what we know as “American liberalism” generally.

Not a bad view, I don’t think - although Paul is not socially liberal on several issues, especially the litmus test issue of abortion.

614

[quote]vroom wrote:

Face it, you’ve got a hate-on and can’t control yourself. Don’t worry, you aren’t the only one.[/quote]

No, no hate in play - just an absence of respect.

615

[quote]rainjack wrote:
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]

Who do you mean by they?

Personally, I am totally “polar opposite to the big government”. Even more so that Paul.

Now, let me ask you a question; Do you support big government or not?

616

[quote]vroom wrote:
Right, and the monetary system, and whatever else he can get his hands on.
[/quote]

I think it is in the constitution that the gov’t is responsible for a safe money supply - ie banks.

But I could be wrong.

I do know that Alexander Hamilton was a big proponent of a national currency, and bank.

617

It’s quite possible that people who argue against the Bush administration all day and all night aren’t as ardently left as some may assume.

Well, depending on the definition one uses for left.

618

[quote]pookie wrote:
I think that when the costs, and accompanying tax burden, are known, people will not be so eager to ask for their pet entitlements. Or they might still want it, but won’t be able to convince enough of the population to get it voted on.
[/quote]

And I think that will be the death nail of this shortlived, albeit nirvanic movement.

Once you let the genie out of the bottle (actually informing the populace of the added cost they will soon be forced to pay) you will have hell, or a revolution, to pay getting him back in the bottle.

619

[quote]lixy wrote:
Who do you mean by they?
[/quote]

Poor lixy. This is not reading class. You should have that particular skill under your belt before coming in here.

It is quite obvious who I was referring to.

620

[quote]vroom wrote:
It’s quite possible that people who argue against the Bush administration all day and all night aren’t as ardently left as some may assume.

Well, depending on the definition one uses for left.[/quote]

And you get all upset when someone calls you out for making stupid comments.

Yet you continue.

Who ever said anti-bush = liberal?

Muddy the waters in another thread. please.