What's wrong with Ron Paul?

[calmloki]

A stack of quotes regarding politics. Citations not verified, use at your own risk to back up your points:

A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which
debt he proposes to pay off with your money. --G. Gordon Liddy

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the
support of Paul. --George Bernard Shaw

Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer from poor people in rich
countries to rich people in poor countries. --Douglas Casey (1992)

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car
keys to teenage boys. --P.J. O'Rourke

Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to
live at the expense of everybody else. --Frederic Bastiat

I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.
--Will Rogers

If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it
costs when it's free.
--P.J. O'Rourke

Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean
politics won't take an interest in you. --Pericles (430 B.C.)

No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is
in session.--Mark Twain (1866)

Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress.
But I repeat myself. --Mark Twain

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the
blessings. The inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of
misery.
-Winston Churchill

The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the
taxidermist leaves the skin. --Mark Twain

We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is
like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the
handle.
--Winston Churchill

What this country needs are more unemployed politicians. --Edward
Langley

and finally, from our most recently deceased former US President (RIP),

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short
phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if
it stops
moving, subsidize it. -- Ronald Reagan (1986)

Talk is cheap-except when Congress does it.
The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy
appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. --Ronald Reagan

 

[brewer12345]

loki, you lost me as soon as you quoted G Gordon Liddy.

As for RuPaul, well, lets just say that it is self evident to ~95% of the electorate that he is "tetched in the head."

 

[youbet]

WASPs (nothing against them personally) .

Gee, so kind of you to not have anything against Protestants personally. Did you bring up the religious aspect because you're Irish Catholic and still "hate those damn Protestants," because Italy is a heavily Catholic country or ??

 

[ladelfina]

Marquette.. oops! Thanks for pointing that out!! I hadn't checked out the particulars there.

samclem, I like the "Republican is a Democrat who's had his wallet stolen," too.

I may have been a bit over the top in defining the libertarians in my personal circle.. but hey, they were young, smart, going to a good school.. so the "Master of the Universe" message clicked with them. They weren't old and needing health care; they knew they were on track for a high-paying job, and through a combination of youth, narcissism, and autism.. just weren't able to put themselves in anyone else's shoes. They were Golden Children.

On campus, there were Democrats and Libertarians.. I think some "libertarians" called themselves such just to be a "more cool" form of Republican in the post-Nixon era. Most people's PARENTS were Republicans.. so there was an element of 'rebellion' in such gestures as berating sales clerks and walking around everywhere barefoot all winter, as one libertarian acquaintance of mine was wont to do.

Understand that most people in the US don't know the ups and downs of socialism.They fear it for some of the wrong reasons; it's not (usually) a hellish, backward nightmare here in Europe. It's just a different form of society with different advantages and disadvantages. The biggest advantage for us is health care.. so it's also a matter of Personal Self-Interest. What I see happening in the US is that when Personal Self-Interest is expressed by the well-to-do.. everyone nods. But when Personal Self-Interest is expressed by "the plebians".. horror!

Unions!? Horror. Lobbyists and trade groups, normal.
Universal health care!? Horror. Eliminate estate tax on multi-billion estates, normal.
Soc. Security!? Horror. Tax breaks for Exxon, normal.
The message I've been getting from the recent R admin.s is that there is plenty of public money for Exxon and Blackwater and for Neil Bush's S&L bail out and now his educational software.. but not for you, the average worker or small entrepreneur. That's what exacerbates the class war. Maybe the money shouldn't be there in the first place, which is ok with me, to an extent.

I've been following the mortgage debacle, and was struck by Paulson's recent "don't walk away" message. It encourages the "little people" to adhere to a 'moral' standard that the big boys don't abide. When the bank gives a loan based on collateral (the house), and you have negative equity.. only a chump wouldn't walk away. The contract, to me, is "you don't pay => the bank takes the house". Take it, bank.. since you made the loan that acknowledged its theoretical worth.

So to make a long story short.. the element of libertarianism I like is that it acknowledges that people act in their self-interest. It's not hidden in the fake altruism that can emanate from either of the 2 major parties. They usually don't pander to religious extremists. I just think libertarians fall down on defining the real citizen "self" and his/her interests.

----
youbet.. sorry, this was just an observation.. and then I didn't want to be WASP-bashing so I added the caveat which seems to have made matters worse. If you have evidence, though, that the country and its major institutions and corporations are or have ever been since 1789 controlled by OTHER than white anglo saxon (male) protestants.. please direct me to that page in the history book. I am 1/2 Mayflower-y WASP, 1/4 Irish Catholic and 1/4 Italian Catholic if that helps you.

 

[Abreutime]

<snip>
I don't understand why Ron Paul, and others like him are such advocates of state's rights. I thought the Libertarian position was one of individual rights. But many of these guys, including Paul, seem to hold the philosophy that the federal government has little power but the states have tremendous power that the federal government cannot limit. For example, Clarence Thomas is an extremely strong state's rights advocate. Under his construction of the constitution the federal government could not bar a state from enacting a state religion. That would be up to the states. No individual freedom there.

I consider myself more of a state's rightist for a few reasons. First, it is consistent with the founding principles, in that the Constitution details certain duties that are carried out federally, with the remainder handled by the states. I view the federal government as the body that overlooks the overreaching issues, such as national security, international agreements on trade and coalition building, etc. Why do you believe that the states should have less "power" than the federal government?

Second, and this is an angle that I've looked at through the lens of gay marriage, is that states have the ability to set laws that reflect the will of the people. The whole idea was the states would have different laws, different budgets, and were run independently. If you don't like some of the laws in your state, you can move! It's ridiculous (in my mind) that the federal government tries to enforce one policy on all the states on every minute issue. Why should the federal government have a say in speed limits, drinking age, marriage, etc? These seem to be state issues (lacking a clear directive otherwise). If a state government wants to allow 2 men to form a marriage, the state should be able to. If another state wishes to not marry 2 men, that's fine too. If another state decides on a definition of common law marriage that includes long-term roommates (co-ed or single sex), that's fine too!

Third, and this is not based on research, I trust a smaller government body (states) to waste less of my money. It is easier to hold local governments accountable for their actions. The bigger the organization, in my opinion, the more potential for waste. Furthermore, on most issues, I would trust a private company over a government controlled company (ie. transportation, schools, etc).

I specifically left out discussion of abortion, since it's a topic for another thread. The business of the government "defining life," and the policy that flows from it, is quite contentious. I will state my position, but you can probably surmise from the above paragraphs what that position would be. Just like their are different statutes among states to define murder, my inclination is to allow states to define life (and the irrevocable human rights associated with life). I believe life starts at 2.875 months, so I would be ok with abortions before that time.

 

[brewer12345]

Third, and this is not based on research, I trust a smaller government body (states) to waste less of my money.

Haaaaaaahahahahaaaha!!! Pull the other one, its got bells on.

 

[Abreutime]

Haaaaaaahahahahaaaha!!! Pull the other one, its got bells on.

Can you show me any quant data suggesting that bigger governments are less wasteful? I haven't done any research on it, but I'd be delighted to become more informed.

 

[brewer12345]

Can you show me any quant data suggesting that bigger governments are less wasteful? I haven't done any research on it, but I'd be delighted to become more informed.

I rather doubt much research has been done. Maybe the Cato Institute or someone similar has a paper out there. But based on the shenanigans I have seen go on at the state and local levels, I would be surpreised to hear that these entities are any less efficient at p!ssing taxpayer money away than the feds. What I would expect to see is that there is more variability at the state and local levels.

 

[Abreutime]

What I would expect to see is that there is more variability at the state and local levels.

Exactly. There is a lot of variation in local government. Local areas that care about the way they are governed can more easily elect local leadership to represent them (easier than electing their desired federal reps). A federal government is not the best representation for the average citizen, and it is more difficult to enact change on a national level. Your experience may differ. Any other sentences in my 4 paragraph post that you want to reply with a zinger?

 

[brewer12345]

Exactly. There is a lot of variation in local government. Local areas that care about the way they are governed can more easily elect local leadership to represent them (easier than electing their desired federal reps). A federal government is not the best representation for the average citizen, and it is more difficult to enact change on a national level. Your experience may differ. Any other sentences in my 4 paragraph post that you want to reply with a zinger?

Hmmm, how about an example? Granted, this is just an anecdote, but since nobody has any hard data it will have to do.

I just got back from Puerto Rico. Despite what you may think, this is a place that resembles the state's rights/RuPaul notion of how to do things, in many ways. Voter turnout is exceedingly high for every election (90+%), and the citizens of that fair land so desire to live without the constraints of government that PR is believed to have the highest percentage of its total economy "off the books" of anywhere in the US. So I think we can agree that the good peope of Puerto Rico very much care about the way they are governed and are generally very actively involved in choosing who governs them.

Now go look at the state of PR's public finances (hint: ).

 

[Orchidflower]

Bill Maher's show on cable does nothing but discuss political issues, and he claims to be a Libertarian. He scoffs Hillary, really makes fun of McCain, but never says anything hardly about Ron Paul. And he promotes Obama nightly. Wonder how he really feels about Ron Paul? Anybody else notice this?

 

[Abreutime]

So do you think that PR's public finances would have more or less waste if the government expanded from 10% of GDP to 30% of GDP. hint: more

Edit: Smaller governments don't necessarily cause less waste on a percentage basis, but I can say with confidence that they simply have less of my money to waste. Are you arguing that governments are a great example of economies of scale, and the bigger the better?

 

[brewer12345]

I am suggesting that devolving into a ragtag band of semi-independent state gummints is perhaps unlikely to be the panacea that RuPaul seems to suggest it would be. But then again, it would be fun watching California's large and technologically advanced military invade Texas and force the conquered population onto a sustainable diet of tofu, brown rice, and bean sprouts.

 

[Abreutime]

I am suggesting that devolving into a ragtag band of semi-independent state gummints is perhaps unlikely to be the panacea that RuPaul seems to suggest it would be. But then again, it would be fun watching California's large and technologically advanced military invade Texas and force the conquered population onto a sustainable diet of tofu, brown rice, and bean sprouts.

Why are you trolling instead of discussing? Bleh, I guess I had slightly higher expectations. I hope you enjoyed your trip to PR.

 

[brewer12345]

Why are you trolling instead of discussing? Bleh, I guess I had slightly higher expectations.

People who live in glass houses...

 

[Abreutime]

I consider myself more of a state's rightist for a few reasons. First, it is consistent with the founding principles, in that the Constitution details certain duties that are carried out federally, with the remainder handled by the states. I view the federal government as the body that overlooks the overreaching issues, such as national security, international agreements on trade and coalition building, etc. Why do you believe that the states should have less "power" than the federal government?

Second, and this is an angle that I've looked at through the lens of gay marriage, is that states have the ability to set laws that reflect the will of the people. The whole idea was the states would have different laws, different budgets, and were run independently. If you don't like some of the laws in your state, you can move! It's ridiculous (in my mind) that the federal government tries to enforce one policy on all the states on every minute issue. Why should the federal government have a say in speed limits, drinking age, marriage, etc? These seem to be state issues (lacking a clear directive otherwise). If a state government wants to allow 2 men to form a marriage, the state should be able to. If another state wishes to not marry 2 men, that's fine too. If another state decides on a definition of common law marriage that includes long-term roommates (co-ed or single sex), that's fine too!

To get back on topic, Brewer, what do you consider to be the role of the federal government, and what do you consider to be the role of state government? Is there anything you would change about it currently?

 

[brewer12345]

To get back on topic, Brewer, what do you consider to be the role of the federal government, and what do you consider to be the role of state government? Is there anything you would change about it currently?

Sure, there are things I would change. But we might as well discuss what we would like to change about the tax code, the laws of physics, etc. My choices appear to be staying home on election night or voting for one or two candidates.

 

[Texarkandy]

To get back on topic, ......

Actually, to get back on topic the question was:

"What's Wrong with Ron Paul" -
-not-
"Why is socialism superior to capitalism"

As the OP I kind of meant the question in a personal sense - what is it about Ron Paul that turns "you", personally, off. Guess I wasn't clear enough about what I was attempting to learn from folks.

I already knew what liberal socialist Democrats think is wrong with Ron Paul (& every other Republican & Libertarian) Seems some on here could have saved themselves a lot of blather by simply saying - "He's not a liberal Democrat socialist"

But what the hey, it's been an interesting thread thus far. (As a newbie here, I have been surprised by the political inclinations of some - not what I expected - I suppose I was suspecting a more "Republican" group for some reason)

 

[clifp]

Actually, to get back on topic the question was:

"What's Wrong with Ron Paul" -
-not-
"Why is socialism superior to capitalism"

As the OP I kind of meant the question in a personal sense - what is it about Ron Paul that turns "you", personally, off. Guess I wasn't clear enough about what I was attempting to learn from folks.

As a person or a presidential candidate?

As person he seems like a kindly old doctor. As I congressmen appreciate that he is willing to take unpopular stands. He is probably one of handful of members of Congress (including McCain) who I actually believe is serious about controlling spending.

As Presidential candidate I think he is horrible. Not only is older than McCain (72) but he acts much older. I look at him I think doddering.
His orator skills make McCain/Hillary look like Obama, and while he isn't horrible in debates, he isn't very good. Note this isn't about what his says. This simply is debate skills, judging from my days on the high school debate team LOL.
(FWIW, I think Romney and Hillary are the best at debate, which I think partly explains why they lost, and why the debate team members at high school never dated the hot chicks/cute guys.)

I completely disagree with him on Foreign Policy, the concept of non-intervention etc. Like or not America is the world police, and I think it is the USA economic self interest to actively engage the rest of world and when facing tyrants we sometimes have to be willing to swing the big stick.

He is almost as protectionist as Pat Buchannan urging the withdrawal and/or opposing virtually every free trade agreement. The obession with the super NAFTA highway, return to the gold standard, and televising the Fed meetings is just plain nuts.


I think is both impossible and unwise to make the level of cuts of government spending that he is proposing. Although I applaud the thought.

On social issue I mostly agree. Although ironically on the one issue where Ron Paul is a orthodox Republican abortion, I am a moderate so we disagree. I think he underestimates the threat Islamic jihadist pose to this country and so his opposition to things like FISA, the Patriot ACT etc is dangerous.

On Iraq his proposal to bring the troops home NOW, would be humanitarian disaster to the long suffering people of Iraq, a big victory for Al Qaeda at Islamic Jihadist, and would set a terrible precedent for a generation on the reliability of America.

But other than that how did you like the play Mrs Lincoln?

 

[Texarkandy]

As a person or a presidential candidate?

As a presidential candidate

- and I appreciate the specific & direct thoughts in your post re: policy differences - doesn't change my mind about RP, but I understand where you are coming from in your positions. A few comments though, if I may:

What I'm hearing from a lot of folks is that they think RP proposes to do all these economic things "overnight" (reduction in size of govt, currency reform, etc) - As I understand it RP is well aware many of these cuts cannot be done overnight (some can) & he knows all he could do as Pres is get us on the road toward that happier day. Perhaps he did not get that out there in his message early in the campaign and so was painted with a broad libertarian brush (given his past).

It's interesting that you can applaud the thought of making large cuts in the size of the Fed Govt on the one hand, and yet say it's impossible & unwise on the other.

As to non-interventionism, policing the world, FISA, Patriot etc, - I suppose one is either for that type govt or they're not. Personally I wonder that being the world's policeman is truly in our interest. We could have left Iraq the day we finished our inspections & captured Sadaam. If not for having so many troops vulnerable in Iraq, we could set back Iran's nuclear program by years with a few well-placed surprise missile strikes with no loss of American life & it would be quite inexpensive. I don't see why we have to have all these expensive and unpopular "boots on the ground" activities to do what we need to do if a country's activities are truly a threat to the world.

I don't see RP as orthodox Republican on abortion. He is personally opposed to abortion, but as a political matter he thinks it should be decided state-by-state by the people - and not by the courts.

 

[ziggy29]

I don't see RP as orthodox Republican on abortion. He is personally opposed to abortion, but as a political matter he thinks it should be decided state-by-state by the people - and not by the courts.

Yep. Plus, I think it's also possible to be politically pro-choice yet believe Roe v. Wade was judicial activism at the federal level. (I'm one of them.)

 

[ladelfina]

as a political matter he thinks it should be decided state-by-state by the people - and not by the courts.

How about "person-by-person" by the people: even better. (Just sayin', from a libertarian pov...) The courts are your friend when they protect individuals FROM government. The whole point of the Constitution is to circumscribe government.. not to circumscribe people, nor to leave them at the mercy of states who might have their own "less-free" ideas about speech, religion, privacy, etc.

Brewer's invasion scenario cracks me up.

"Judicial activism" too often is shorthand for "a decision leading to an outcome I don't like". (present company excepted, ziggy29).

 

[Texarkandy]

How about "person-by-person" by the people: even better. (Just sayin', from a libertarian pov...) The courts are your friend when they protect individuals FROM government. The whole point of the Constitution is to circumscribe government.. not to circumscribe people, nor to leave them at the mercy of states who might have their own "less-free" ideas about speech, religion, privacy, etc.

Brewer's invasion scenario cracks me up.

"Judicial activism" too often is shorthand for "a decision leading to an outcome I don't like". (present company excepted, ziggy29).

I think the RP position on abortion is that it's not clearly a specific constitutionally protected right/privilege. The fed govt therefore doesn't have a dog in the fight (unless it happens to occur on Federal jurisdiction property).

There are those who allege abortion is the same as, or akin to, murder or wrongful death (not saying I'm one of those) - the Federal govt does not have jurisdiction over murder/wrongful death except on federal property.

Criminal Statutes re: murder / wrongful death are generally controlled by the States as should be abortion statutes.

 

[Joe_Derp]

What's wrong with Ron Paul? Not a damn thing...

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

If you really believe that the explanations that most politicians at the top give for our country's economic woes are accurate, you deserve what's coming within the next ten years. Ron Paul is the only candidate, Democrat or Republican, who has the humility and guts to tell the truth.

McCain, Billary, Obama...we're screwed six ways till Sunday.

 

[kathyet]

I did read what he said carefully and objectively and that is why I saw mush. The state does not give inheritance rights to the unborn--you have to be born alive to inherit. States differ on penalties regarding injury to a woman and her fetus. There is no federal crime. In any event, you have to draw lines and the line is not drawn at conception. Embryos are thrown away, are naturally expelled by women, and I am not aware of any place in the US where it is a crime to dispose of an embryo or to cause the death of an embryo.

Yes, he does not want federal involvement in the abortion question but he supports a state's right to criminalize abortion with the criminals being the "abortionists" as he calls them. He is old enough to remember the days before Roe v. Wade when abortions existed, they have always existed, but were not safe and not legal. I guess he doesn't care.

Sorry though for bringing up abortion. This topic is one that should be on the list of forbidden moderator topics, but I got pulled in.

I don't understand why Ron Paul, and others like him are such advocates of state's rights. I thought the Libertarian position was one of individual rights. But many of these guys, including Paul, seem to hold the philosophy that the federal government has little power but the states have tremendous power that the federal government cannot limit. For example, Clarence Thomas is an extremely strong state's rights advocate. Under his construction of the constitution the federal government could not bar a state from enacting a state religion. That would be up to the states. No individual freedom there.

Ron Paul is a Republican, he is also a Senator, he calls for our Constitution to be followed and I think he is the best of this awful bunch that is running. I plan on writing him in..Unless another party evolves.

There is another it is called the Constitution Party, I think it is The Constituition Party.com with a Charles Baldwin Running, and the Libertarian Party has another person running his name escapes me right now, and the Independant Party has... Ralph Nader running

My only objection to Ron Paul and Mr Baldwin is that they don't believe in "Choice" and I do and I believe in the seperation of Church and State and not too sure of the belief there either.....but if it comes down to getting our Country back from these Pandering,Puppets that we call Democrats and Rebuplicans I will vote for or write in one of them. The good thing is there is still time to check all of them out...

Kathyet

P.S.

You can Google the Libertarian Party to find out that persons name who is running...