The Ron Paul appreciation thread!

[JeffTD]

Actually, I'll correct you: Communist China has the most thriving capitalist economy.
(I am of course not advocating for that)

I see what you did there...

 

[Aaron Smith]

Guess which countries right now don't have economies in the shitter? It's those socialist Europeans.

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff... You know better than to say this. The Eurozone is headed for recession again, the shared currency is in dire straits and cannot survive in its present form, Eurozone unemployment is still at a record high... Oh, and the Federal Reserve is actively propping up European banks and governments via currency swaps with the ECB.

 

[xFkx]

who cares, if there ain't market growth, there's recession. It's either one or the other, and it's useless to expect an everlasting stream of economic growth, or an everlasting recession for that matter.

Anywho, i'm too cynical about politics to be interested in anything that any politician has to say, the results always vary

 

[JeffTD]

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff... You know better than to say this. The Eurozone is headed for recession again, the shared currency is in dire straits and cannot survive in its present form, Eurozone unemployment is still at a record high... Oh, and the Federal Reserve is actively propping up European banks and governments via currency swaps with the ECB.

Not really that accurate. The Eurozone is in collapse, but that has more to do with a few select countries severely fucking up things for the rest of them. Look at who's doing well out of the bunch and you'll see they're the most social democracies of the bunch. Hell, Norway and Sweden aren't even on the Euro and are doing relatively great compared to the rest of the world, and we all know how Sweden has the privilege of being socialisms whipping boy in America.

The countries that tanked the Eurozone? Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland? Not as socially democratic as the countries propping them up.

*edit* I do find it kind of funny that that's the ONE piece of my argument you decided to jump on, though.

 

[jipchen]

TheWinterSnow, I hope you realize what you sound like
The "arguments" you listed are ridiculous. It's actually the other way round if you look at the world: The more free and uncontrolled the market was the worse it is. Sure, the economy boosts for some time but then it crushes down like piled shit.. it's not the first time this happened how can you just ignore this? The more controlled and "socialistic" a country's economy is the better they work. They don't boom as crazily as with freer markets but they don't crush either. That's just a fact no matter how long you turn it around.
Second: Do you really think european countries are socialistic as in we have socialism over here? If you do then you're the most wrong informed person ever because that is not even remotely the case. We actually have "your" precious capitalism too. Like pretty much ANY country except for the wannabe-communistic ones. In the best cases (Scandinavia) it is actually called "social capitalism" and it works 1000x times better than in the US (and in Germany for that matter).
So just thinking logically if you look how free markets make living conditions for the biggest part of the population in a country worse, and then how more social oriented capitalism makes the living conditions in a country actually a lot better for the biggest part of the population.. what do you think will completely free markets look like?

True, free markets will make some people extremely rich. But that will be 0.5% of the citizens and the rest is off far worse. And what will stop corporations from fucking over basically everbody in the country except for the 100 cartel bosses?

I still can't get over the fact that *especially* people with not that much money who work hard and still struggle to earn enough money don't understand that THEY are the ones that get fucked with freer or even "free" markets. The working class should be the ones to fight against the anti-social capitalism for a more social capitalism (or even communism because for them the conditions will actually be better.. not saying I'd like the idea personally but it makes sense for them)

PS: +1 to basically everything Jeff said.
The countries over here that fucked up are actually the really conservative ones with a "freer", corrupt and anti-social economy
But yeah, take them as an example for the "socialistic countries" failing hahaha.. *sigh*

I am not for any on person being denied healthcare if they do not have health insurance or their insurance turns them down, that is pure wrong, but socialized medicine is not the answer. If you knew more on Dr. Paul's stance on healthcare reforms, you would know that he wants everyone to have healthcare and never be denied, but he (like me) does not want the medical expenses to be on taxpayer dollar.

Yeah, seems legit Read this again, look at his program and realize there is no such solution.

 

[AD Chaos]

Not really that accurate. The Eurozone is in collapse, but that has more to do with a few select countries severely fucking up things for the rest of them. Look at who's doing well out of the bunch and you'll see they're the most social democracies of the bunch. Hell, Norway and Sweden aren't even on the Euro and are doing relatively great compared to the rest of the world, and we all know how Sweden has the privilege of being socialisms whipping boy in America.

The countries that tanked the Eurozone? Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland? Not as socially democratic as the countries propping them up.

Again, to me a socialist policy works good when you have a government that is efficient, fiscally responsible and generally speaking, not corrupted, and a national cultural background that supports it.
Would Norway and Sweden be doing ok with corrupt governments? Doubt it. What did they do when they started discovering oil reserves in the Northern Sea? Throwing it away like some egocentric Venezuelan dictator? No.
Saving and investing the money wisely. That is responsible. It works if you're talking about a country, or about individuals.
Then again when you have people with an over-spending mentality, is no surprise you have a country over spending and throwing money away as well, and politicians responding to that very collective mindset.
Same the case with Greece and other countries in crisis. Simply put, their governments spent recklessly, and now of course they want others to bail them out.

Sounds familiar?

The first thing to fix is this over-spending. Without fixing that, talking about trimming here and there is just the cheap talk of every other politician.

 

[jipchen]

Oh and I think Ron Pauls foreign policy is actually a really good thing, unlike, let's see... every other candidate (including Obama).
For the other countries' sake and for the way other countries look at the USA he is probably the best candidate one can imagine!

For the american citizens however, especially the lower-middle and lower classes - I don't think so. It's a bitter irony they don't see that.

 

[egan.]

I am not for any on person being denied healthcare if they do not have health insurance or their insurance turns them down, that is pure wrong, but socialized medicine is not the answer. If you knew more on Dr. Paul's stance on healthcare reforms, you would know that he wants everyone to have healthcare and never be denied, but he (like me) does not want the medical expenses to be on taxpayer dollar.

The whole previous page in this thread is full of false know-it-alls that need to do a little bit more research on Dr. Paul.

Firstly, maybe I'm ignorant to his "real" position on healthcare but what you are describing is not what he outlines on his own website or in the debates. Secondly, as Jeff pointed out, someone has to (and does) pay. The problem with the "freedom to fail" argument is that few people want those unable to pay to simply suffer and/or die. So, you either cover them or you pass the cost along to everyone else. The things RP outlines on his website are the best options to maximize the efficiency of our current system but they simply don't account for the "death or bankruptcy" situations that occur everyday. Perhaps the hope is that charities will pick up the slack and lower taxes will allow for more charitable donations but that is incredible leap of faith.

If you think there are specific flaws in assertions made you should address them.

 

[AD Chaos]

Your entire post is full of condescending, fear-mongered, douchebag remarks about "socialist Europe" and how "we" are somehow different and better for being so different and how their mild misunderstandings of our incredibly convoluted system somehow invalidate any claims or opinions they have that differ from your own.

The only irresponsible, actual ''fear mongering'' going around in America today is that if you actually try to change the course and don't continue to throw money away, feed the military complex machine and abuse other countries with it, your economy is going to collapse, when it is precisely that irresponsible behavior what's actually harming you all and taking you to a more vulnerable position everyday, to begin with.

When you as an individual work hard, save your money and invest wisely, you are on the sound financial path. When you spend over your means, keep receiving loans and expect others to eventually pick the tabs for you, you're not.
All the same for a country as for the individual person.

Our system doesn't work - that's the problem.

If it's not working, then even beginning to consider the other 3 candidates who are going to give you just more of the same is really not much of an option, no?
It's not fanboyism, you see.

 

[Toni S.]

First of all, +1 to Jeff and jipchen.

If you knew more on Dr. Paul's stance on healthcare reforms, you would know that he wants everyone to have healthcare and never be denied, but he (like me) does not want the medical expenses to be on taxpayer dollar.

Would you care to elaborate on Ron Paul's healtcare reforms? Everytime I've heard of him talking about healthcare, he's solution has been free-market for those who can pay for their healthcare and and just private charities taking care of the people with no means of buying healthcare for themselves. Like doctors working for free in churches, etc. (he has used this as an example, if I remember correctly). He want's goverment to really have nothing to do with people's healthcare.

Has he advocated any other measures of providing healthcare for all besides what I meantioned above? I'm just curious and would really like to know. Because it seems to me that he says he wants everyone to have healthcare but would leave those who can't afford it in the mercy of private charity. If this is the case, it seems a little bit, well, naive.

 

[egan.]

When you as an individual work hard, save your money and invest wisely, you are on the sound financial path. When you spend over your means, keep receiving loans and expect others to eventually pick the tabs for you, you're not.

That all sounds great in a binary world where you either take care of your shit or you don't but it fails to account for the reality that you can be laid off, get cancer, have your house burn down, have a household breadwinner die, etc. etc.
Hard work and wise investment don't preclude the possibility of disaster. They don't even guarantee success. To truly have a "freedom to fail" ideology you have to be willing to let others suffer. Where do orphans, handicapped people and the elderly fit in that system?

Anyway though, what does your statement have to do with RP? Is he in favor of repealing unemployment insurance? Is he in favor of repealing bankruptcy laws? What legislation is he going to proposing that is going to enforce that ideology?

edit: I reread and I believe you're talking about balancing the budget federal and ultimately eliminating the deficit. Still, I think that you are outlining one of the fundamental conservative/libertarian arguments right now and believe my questions regarding individuals and policy are still pertinent.

 

[Toni S.]

That all sounds great in a binary world where you either take care of your shit or you don't but it fails to account for the reality that you can be laid off, get cancer, have your house burn down, have a household breadwinner die, etc. etc.
Hard work and wise investment don't preclude the possibility of disaster. They don't even guarantee success. To truly have a "freedom to fail" ideology you have to be willing to let others suffer. Where do orphans, handicapped people and the elderly fit in that system?

Anyway though, what does your statement have to do with RP? Is he in favor of repealing unemployment insurance? Is he in favor of repealing bankruptcy laws? What legislation is he going to proposing that is going to enforce that ideology?

Indeed.

I believe Ron Paul and other libertarians are advocates of a night watch man -state, so yes, I think he would be for repealing unemployment insurance, as long as it's coming from the government and paid by tax dollars anyway. I'm not putting words in his mouth, but this is what I believe his stance would be based on what I know about the guy.

 

[xFkx]

When you as an individual work hard, save your money and invest wisely, you are on the sound financial path. When you spend over your means, keep receiving loans and expect others to eventually pick the tabs for you, you're not.
All the same for a country as for the individual person.

Although i'm an atheist, I always found wisdom in this saying:

if you want to make god lough, tell him about your plans

 

[Aaron Smith]

You know, I would be much more willing to discuss and even perhaps entertain the supposed glories of socialized medicine if the US government first would get its spending under control. It is absolutely pathetic that the Deficit Reduction supercommittee had discussions for over four months, and couldn't even come up with a way to cut $1 Trillion over ten years. Until our government appreciates the gravity of our debt situation, it blows my mind that anyone can suggest increasing government involvement with health care on top of our the already insane pile of debt.

Shouldn't the main focus be on how to reduce the rapidly increasing costs of health care? If health care were cheaper, then more people could afford to pay for their own care, and health insurance would also then be cheaper. Rapidly rising costs of any good or service is not a feature of free markets, but a feature of government meddling.

For the record, Sweden has been running balanced budgets and paying down their debt every single year since the early 1990s, after their currency nearly collapsed. Until our government can come to manage itself in that way, it's unreasonable to simply say "Let's do what Sweden does for health care!".

 

[AD Chaos]

You know, I would be much more willing to discuss and even perhaps entertain the supposed glories of socialized medicine if the US government first would get its spending under control. It is absolutely pathetic that the Deficit Reduction supercommittee had discussions for over four months, and couldn't even come up with a way to cut $1 Trillion over ten years. Until our government appreciates the gravity of our debt situation, it blows my mind that anyone can suggest increasing government involvement with health care on top of our the already insane pile of debt.

Shouldn't the main focus be on how to reduce the rapidly increasing costs of health care? If health care were cheaper, then more people could afford to pay for their own care, and health insurance would also then be cheaper. Rapidly rising costs of any good or service is not a feature of free markets, but a feature of government meddling.

For the record, Sweden has been running balanced budgets and paying down their debt every single year since the early 1990s, after their currency nearly collapsed. Until our government can come to manage itself in that way, it's unreasonable to simply say "Let's do what Sweden does for health care!".

+∞

Without stopping the insane spending, talking about healthcare or any other reform is rather pointless.

 

[Joematthews]

No offense Joematthews, but you're talking up a huge game when you clearly don't know shit about Ron Paul.

Have some respect.

 

[JeffTD]

I can appreciate not wanting to implement more socialized policies given the current state of our economic affairs, but to dismiss them completely and to champion other policies instead is just dumb. I agree, we need to balance our budget, cut spending, and stop living beyond our means, but I don't think that experimenting with completely un-tested, un-proven policies at the same time is a responsible way to go about balancing our books.

 

[roy22341]

Here's why I like Ron Paul:

Explain to me the main policies differences between GWB and Obama? I want a FUNDAMENTAL difference between the two.

Spending has skyrocketed under both, with no real value to it other than corporate welfare. These two administrations have managed to privatize gains while socializing losses in the corporate world. Ron Paul may be for de-regulation in some areas, but he is far from popular with corporations because he does not believe the government should be handing out subsidies or bailouts. Luckily for them, both Romney (who I believe will be the candidate for the Republicans) and Obama are big fans of government handouts to corporations - be it through bailouts, subsidies, government contracts, etc. etc. - the amount of MY tax money that goes these corporations is ridiculous.



I don't necessarily agree with all of Ron Paul's tax policies, but its better than our other options which are - Obama: here's a token discount on your social security taxes every year - it won't make a difference to you because its such a small amount of your tax burden and we're robbing the Social Security funds anyway so don't worry, we'll have to eventually raise your taxes and shovel more money in that direction. Romney - corporations deserve tax breaks at your expense. I'd much rather see a fair system where everyone is taxed at an equal percentage - NO deductions, NO writeoffs, no difference for capital gains or for corporations. Pick a fucking number, and that's what everyone pays. Pick a poverty line, no one below that pays income taxes and you're done.

I don't have a problem paying taxes - that's the cost of a civilized society. However, until there is equal contribution from both the super rich and the lower classes, the middle class will continue to suffer.

I'm a Libertarian - I believe in the free market. Now before you call me batshit insane, and a Nazi, and a fucking corporation lover let me explain some of my views.

Unions - Good. If they are a natural development of a workforce that is skilled, by all fucking means go for it. We need unions - the Democrats have forgotten about them and the Republicans despise them. THIS is what is protecting our middle class. Any union busting law is a violation of the free market. However, unions that are given too much power and have ridiculous laws (e.g. the teachers union) are harmful to our economy and our future. The ability to fire shitty teachers is necessary, and when a union has that much money and that much sway it becomes impossible. A lot of unions out there right now are in it to profit the union bosses - its up to the union leaders to change that. They are no better than a corporate slave who works long hours and sacrifices for the profit of his CEO. These poor people have been misled into believing that what they're doing is best for them, when its really best for the union leaders.

Gay marriage - legalize it. Why is the state in the marriage business anyway? Eliminate deductions for marriages and you eliminate the need to have the state involved. Get the government out of peoples bedrooms.

Abortion - personally I'm not a fan. As long as a fetus is viable outside the womb, however, I see no reason why abortion isn't murder. Up until the point of viability outside the womb a woman has the right to her own body. I think this is a fairly reasonable, middle of the road approach. Government interference in this is terrible. This is where I disagree with Ron Paul - if Kansas decides to ban abortions at the point of conception I consider that a government infringement on a persons rights.

Death penalty - abolish it. Governments should not decide who lives and who dies.

Foreign policy - Bring our troops home, period. That's it, that's all, that's final. Unless our national security is at stake we don't belong there. Pre-emptive wars are wars of aggression. Wars of "national security interest" are nothing more than corporate wars.

Immigration - needs serious reform. A fair, common sense system that makes it easy for immigrants to come here legally is an absolute necessity to the growth of our society. Completely open borders are just stupid.

Government - bureaucracy has gotten in the way of efficiency. A lot of things the government does can be outsourced - road construction, retirement, etc. etc.

Social security - sorry, don't need the government to watch over me for retirement. I'll handle that - and obviously do a much better job than they will. People who have paid into it should get the benefits they've earned, but those who have yet to put a penny in should not be forced to. Make it optional.

Corporations - NOT people. But at their core, there's nothing wrong with them. They are profit driven machines. Period. That's it and that's all. There is no reason the government should subsidize ANY corporation - be it an oil company or a solar panel company or an automotive company. Banks that are too big to fail bring down whole economies. No industry should be allowed to become that big, and excessive government regulation DOES strangle real "small" businesses. This allows big corporations to get bigger and become "too big to fail". If a bank goes under - that's it, they're done. Sorry.

Drug policy - massive waste of money. Legalize it all - I bet you won't go shoot heroin tomorrow because its "legal." If you become an addict and rob someone to sustain your habit - you should be punished for the robbery appropriately - but to say I need the government to tell me not to become a heroin addict, then throw me in jail when I do and provide no rehab is ridiculous.

People need to look out for themselves - I don't count on anyone else to help me. We're all animals and nature is still nature. We should help those truly in need but I should not be legally required to sustain massive corporate welfare, unemployment benefits for drug addicts, or a military-industrial complex that does nothing but endanger me.

For the record - I paid $19,953 in taxes last year. Other than using roads (which are horrendously maintained) I really have a hard time seeing how my money went to improve ANYTHING. (For the record, I rent, so I do not pay property taxes that support schools. I would be more than happy to support a local school through taxes.) Ron Paul certainly is more in line with my views than the other imperialist, corporation loving candidates that either party has to offer.

/rant - FLAME ON

 

[egan.]

You know, I would be much more willing to discuss and even perhaps entertain the supposed glories of socialized medicine if the US government first would get its spending under control. It is absolutely pathetic that the Deficit Reduction supercommittee had discussions for over four months, and couldn't even come up with a way to cut $1 Trillion over ten years. Until our government appreciates the gravity of our debt situation, it blows my mind that anyone can suggest increasing government involvement with health care on top of our the already insane pile of debt.

Shouldn't the main focus be on how to reduce the rapidly increasing costs of health care? If health care were cheaper, then more people could afford to pay for their own care, and health insurance would also then be cheaper. Rapidly rising costs of any good or service is not a feature of free markets, but a feature of government meddling.

For the record, Sweden has been running balanced budgets and paying down their debt every single year since the early 1990s, after their currency nearly collapsed. Until our government can come to manage itself in that way, it's unreasonable to simply say "Let's do what Sweden does for health care!".

This a classic conservative argument but it ignores the possibility that the two solutions are complementary. To use your Sweden example, they spend 10% of GDP on healthcare and we spend 17%. Curiously, we spend about the same amount of public money that they do (8% of GDP). It's strange to me that adopting a proven working system is somehow less reasonable than a completely unknown response to deregulation in a non-standard market. Assuming the Sweden numbers are possible here (not sure they are) it would free another $1trillion dollars in private disposable income to be put into the free market. Even though government spending wouldn't go down, conservatives have long touted that more disposable income = a stronger economy = more jobs (equals greater tax base).

FWIW, one of the things I like about Ron Paul is that unlike other conservatives he's actually willing to cut things other than social programs to meet his goal. The average republican seems to want to cut social programs, expand defense and lower taxes making all cuts a total wash. I think we can all agree that the last 4 of the last 5 adminstrations and the last twenty or so congresses have been completely reckless in regards to the budget.

 

[MarcusGHedwig]

All I can ask is - haven't any of you laissez-faire supporters ever read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle?" To me there's no better example of the dangers of total deregulation - corporations exploit, consolidate their power, and become impervious, it's like the bully on the playground who just hogs all the toys, they're never gonna play fair when profits are involved. The whole concept of Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" just always struck me as completely ludicrous: everyone is in business for personal gain and self-interest obviously, how could that possibly end up being for the greater good of society as a whole?

And a massive +1 to pretty much everything Egan and Jeff wrote, especially about the false dichotomy of "motivated hard-working citizen" vs. "lazy freeloading slacker"