Congressman Ron Paul - Presidential Candidate

[michaeledward]

OK ... so even I am having a hard time getting my brain around political debates this early in the election cycle. And very soon, we will start seeing the campaign canvassers here in New Hampshire. But, I was just reading an web article about Ron Paul's performance in the Debate the other evening. Some live polling data showed that Ron Paul won the debate; despite the media reporting Mitt Romney as the victor.

What is even more amazing, I had no idea who this person was. I tend to try and follow politics closely, but I had only vaguely heard his name.

So, who is this guy? Who would vote for him and why? And, did he really win that debate? Or is his just the Republican Party's Dennis Kucinich?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

 

[Makalakumu]

This first clip is of Mr. Paul at the Debate.

It's been a long time since I've posted in the study because I've pretty much have had nothing positive to say about many of the politics presented here. With this topic, however, all I have to say is that Mr. Paul is probably the best candidate the Republicans have to offer. In fact, I would vote for him over almost ANY of the democratic candidates simply for the fact that he would preserve my freedom by destroying the government that has unfortunately been created by the manipulating elite.

Here are some clips of Mr. Paul and his positions....

Ron Paul on the Demented Philosophy of Conquest
Ron Paul on the History of Neoconservatism Part 1 of 11
Ron Paul on Why Are Americans So Angry
Ron Paul on The Fiat Empire of the Federal Reserve

Finally, look at how Bill Maher goes after Ron Paul...

Maher is a tool of the elite.

 

[elder999]

It’s now a matter of record that Republicans in power for the past decade-plus, even while they were in control of both the White House and Congress, have outspent the Democrats who preceded them, and they passed more laws restricting individual rights. They forsook almost every conservative promise they made.

Who is Ron Paul? He’s a nine-time Republican congressman from the 14th congressional district in Texas. He’s an M.D. (a refreshing change from the stream of lawyers who fill the halls of Congress and our state legislatures). In 1988 he was the Libertarian Party’s candidate for President and garnered some 400,000 votes nationwide. It was enough to place him third in the presidential race. He may have changed parties from Libertarian to Republican, but he’s philosophically still a Libertarian.

Paul regularly votes against anything that would lead to even bigger government including government spending, initiatives, or taxes. In fact, he votes against anything that’s unconstitutional, even if he’s running contrary to the Republican Party line or his constituents’ wishes.

He’s seen right through the so-called “War on Terror” and realizes it’s a war on individual freedoms. He is one of the few Congressmen to tell the people no one in Congress was allowed to read the PATRIOT Act before it was voted on, and that’s why he refused to vote for it. Now there are plenty of Congressmen who wish they hadn’t voted for it. Too late.

He voted against the Iraq War Resolution. How many in Congress on that day wish they could go back in time and change their votes so they could say they voted against this ridiculous “war”?

He didn’t have to wait for the 1994 Contract with America to espouse term limits. He’s advocated them for years.

He has opposed the Central American Free Trade Agreement because it will increase the size of government.

He’s opposed to illegal immigration.

According to the National Taxpayers Union, he has no peer in Congress working on behalf of taxpayers.

When he talks about limited government and more individual freedoms, he actually means it. And for you skeptics out there, unlike virtually any other candidate, he has a voting record that proves it.

What’ll we get if Paul is in the White House? He advocates a real currency, based on a commodity, gold, not one furnished to the United States by that private corporation called the Federal Reserve, which is based on another commodity, paper.

Can he win? When he decided to return to Congress in 1996, the people elected him, even when the Republican Party powers-that-be didn’t want him to run again and backed the incumbent, Greg Laughlin, who portrayed Paul’s policies as extreme and eccentric. Extreme and eccentric? Read the Constitution; those are Paul’s principles. We haven’t seen an elected official on Capitol Hill who believed in those principles in my lifetime, other than Ron Paul. And we haven’t seen a President in the White House who paid more than lip service to the Constitution since long before FDR. He went on to beat his Democrat that November. The Republicans are now stuck with him.

He’s not only a favorite of Libertarians and old-time conservative Republicans, but he’s also garnered support from many Democrats who like his positions on individual liberties and opposition to our intervention in Iraq.

For those of you who have said you want smaller government, more real rights (the God-given or Natural kind, as opposed to the ones issued by the state), this is your chance. And for those of you who claim you don’t like either Republicans or Democrats, but have to vote for the lesser of two evils so you won’t be throwing your vote away, this is your chance. If Paul is nominated,I think the choice will be there.

 

[Makalakumu]

I don't agree with everything he has to say, but I think that he may be the only real candidate in this next election. His policies would truly reverse the assault on freedom and prosperity that has been undertaken since 1913 Federal Reserve Act. I don't think we can even contemplate health care, education, and infrastructure until we dismantle the Military Industrial Complex, Abolish the Fed, the IRS and the CIA, and throw the international old world monied elite out of our government...and most likely out of our country.

I sympathize with the Dems on a lot of issues, but I believe that the party itself is nothing but a tool of this corrupt system.

 

[michaeledward]

Well, my politics are no secret here in the Study. I am almost a Socialist; based on the belief that we are all in the same boat, and we will all make progress faster and easier when everyone picks up a paddle and works toward a common goal.

But, I have given money to the campaign of John McCain, back when he was a "maverick", and to Orrin Hatch, back when he thought President Clinton's private life should be private.

What I have heard of from Representative Paul is very interesting. It seems to be the foundation principles of the Republican Party (you may recall, I initiated a thread on this site asking if anyone remained in that party): small government, limited foreign involvement, fiscal responsibility. I disagree with most of his policy suggestions, but they certainly do smack of integrity.

 

[Makalakumu]

While I sympathize a lot with democratic ideals, I'm sick of watching my tax dollars go to pay for things that I absolutely abhor. Congressmen Paul wants to reshape the military and turn it back into a force that is non-interventionist in nature, a force that is supposed to defend our nation, not our overseas interests. This will include disbanding the CIA.

And first and foremost, one of the things I really give the congressmen props for is his push to dismantle the federal reserve, disband the IRS, get us back on the Gold Standard, and bring fiscal sanity back to our nation. If this stuff doesn't happen, then nothing else really matters, because this country will implode.

The level of corruption present in our government is unprecedented and the whole ediface needs to be torn down. What better way to accomplish this then to choke the monster libertarian style!

 

[Phoenix44]

Choke the monster?

I have to paraphrase Carlos Mencia. "I like to pay taxes, because it's the only thing that keeps us from being a third world country. You like roads? You like electricity? You like the Fire Department? You support our troops?"

The problem with many of our government institutions is that recent policies have choked these services so much, that they CAN'T do the job anymore, so it's easy for people to point a finger and say government screws everything up. Sure, FEMA couldn't handle Katrina...all the emergency management professionals were fired, and FEMA lost its autonomy. What did we get? Heckuvajob Brownie.

Healthcare? I'm a physician and a patient, and I can tell you for a fact that Medicare does a far better job treating far more people cheaper and with less red tape than ANY private insurance company, because the private company's job is to make money, not to serve people.

Of course the FDA and USDA can't keep our food supply safe...they've also been choked.

IMO, we need these government agencies, and we need accountability--we don't need more corporatization of services. You think General Electric and Pfizer are going to look out for YOU?

 

[crushing]

Choke the monster. Instead of listing essential services, why did you not include the Gravina Bridge aka The Bridge to Nowhere, and other wasteful pork spending? Wasteful programs and expenditures are eating away at the funding of essential services as it is difficult to get elected on the "I'll raise your taxes" platform.

Also, I'm curious as to why it is thought that some nameless beaurocrat would be more likely to look out for me than a company that has its reputation on the line? Would you do your job any differently if you were working for a private entity rather than a governmental agency? The problem is transparency. Governmental agencies tend to have more transparency to operations than private enterprises. Apply that transparency, even more so, to government contractor's dealings with the government.

Transparency may not have let Halliburton get away with some of the stuff they did in the 90s and later as some military operations were privatized in Haiti, Somalia, and Bosnia. Halliburton's roll was reviewed favorably by the Vice President's Reinventing Government team in 1996 as "Outsourcing of Logistics Allows Combat Troops to Stick to Basics."

I think it all starts with transparency.

 

[Carol]

Choke the monster.

I mentioned once in an exchange with Jonathan Randall...I was a member of the RNC in the year 2000. Shortly after the election I received a thank-you package from the RNC that comprised of a couple of a nicely done photo and a certificate thanking me for supporting the values of limited government, a strong military and...I forget what the third was...may have been fiscal responsibility or something of that ilk.

I wish I was supporting those values. I apparantly didn't.

Ron Paul sounds very interesting. I'm looking forward to hearing more from him. I hope Boston crumudgeon Howie Carr is wrong when he said he didn't think Rep. Paul had a chance.

 

[elder999]

Choke the monster.

No, don't choke the monster....reduce it in size to where it will fit in a bathtub-then drown it.

 

[Phoenix44]

Instead of listing essential services, why did you not include the Gravina Bridge aka The Bridge to Nowhere, and other wasteful pork spending

Very simple: because I also said we need accountability.

Also, I'm curious as to why it is thought that some nameless beaurocrat would be more likely to look out for me than a company that has its reputation on the line? Would you do your job any differently if you were working for a private entity rather than a governmental agency?

First of all, I AM "a nameless bureaucrat," working for a municipal Department of Health. I was in private practice for 15 years, and the reason I left was specifically BECAUSE I was expected to do my job differently than my judgment would dictate. The DOH requires me to keep my CPR training up to date. The private practice couldn't care less. The DOH requires me to be board certified, and to recertify as appropriate. In private practice, my bosses weren't even board certified! I am required to do continuing medical education so I can keep up to date, and in fact, the DOH provides that training. The private practice didn't care, didn't provide it, didn't give me time off for training, and certainly didn't pay me to train. In private medical care, it was all about the money. With the DOH, I can provide a very high level of care more efficiently, to more people, and at less expense. And my supervisors tell me, "You just do a good job." I don't have to worry about co-payments.

So yes, I expect a well-running and well-funded governmental operation to work much more in my interest than Pfizer or Aetna Health Plans. And as a matter of fact, in the past year--even though I have decent health insurance--I started going to government-funded non-profit agencies (read "not private corporations") for my own health care. The doctors are better trained, and take better care of me than the private doctors I've been to recently--and for a lot less money.

The problem is transparency. Governmental agencies tend to have more transparency to operations than private enterprises. Apply that transparency, even more so, to government contractor's dealings with the government.

Can't happen, because of corporations' "personhood." Corporations may not care about YOUR privacy, but they are entitled to theirs. And they won't monitor themselves, because it may interfere with profits, which is their raison d'etre.

 

[Makalakumu]

In my ideal world, America has a non-inteventionist foriegn policy that requires only enough military to defend our borders and patrol our coasts. I would like to have a transparent intelligence agency that looks for direct threats to the security of this nation's borders and nothing else.

I would like to see the free market cut loose in places where its appropriate where regulations are only put in place to protect the countries health, safety, and environment. This is going to mean cutting the massive subsidies in natural resources, agriculture, and industry as well as breaking up every trust that has been established in order to control the consumer's choices.

I would like to see health care and education as fully funded social programs. I do not think that either should be privatized because these are both basic needs of all American citizens and thus need to held to a high standard of quality. I believe that every citizen should have full access to any level of both that they need and that the people should collectively pay for this just like they would pay for defense or infrastructure.

Lastly, and most importantly, I believe that we need to have sound, interest free, gold backed currency that is managed by government forces with full oversight of the citizens and congress. We need to establish a balanced budget and pass an amendment that states that one cannot spend more money that it takes in. The IRS must be disbanded, it is unconstitutional and grants the government no new powers of taxation according to the Supreme Court.

Our government needs to be funded in the original way the Constitution intended in order to protect the people's labor, property, and liberty. Corporate Taxation and Sales Taxes provided all of the funding for this country up to 1913 and the IRS was established for the sole purpose of paying the interest on the currency the Federal Reserve printed for the government. The IRS fleeces the average American in order to line the pockets of elite international bankers.

All of this would dramatically reduce our tax burden and it would dramatically reduce the size of our government back to a point where it no longer threatens our freedom.

Will Congressmen Paul be able to enact any of these changes if elected President? Probably not. The CIA would do him like Kennedy and the fact that I suspect this only underscores the fact that these changes need to be made.

There is no doubt in my mind that our current government is more corrupt now then it ever has been before. Everything that they do now will be twisted for the benefit of the big monied elite no matter how well intentioned. The best thing we can do is tear the whole thing down and try and rebuild according to what our founding fathers originally intended.

I'm afraid for our future, because I know the current system isn't going to last. We need to remake our institutions so that the work for us all instead of slowly enslaving us and driving us into poverty.

 

[crushing]

First of all, I AM "a nameless bureaucrat," working for a municipal Department of Health.

Hello nameless bureaucrat, I'm untrustworthy private sector worker. Pleased to make your acquaintance.

I'm still not sure how the government emloyment attracts the honest people while the private sector ends up full of crooks.

As far as choking the monster. Again, I took choking the monster to stand for the elimination of unnecessary and wasteful spending and not the strangulation of necessary programs.

 

[Makalakumu]

Again, I took choking the monster to stand for the elimination of unnecessary and wasteful spending and not the strangulation of necessary programs.

What happens when "necessary" programs are manipulated so that they fleece the public and line the pockets of the elite?

Watch how the private sector lines up for public money and watch at how our elected official drool when they give it to them.

I'm sick of the machiavellian back room deals that take the most well intentioned efforts and manipulate them for the gain of the few.

 

[TaiChiTJ]

The more I hear about Ron Paul, the more I like him.

 

[crushing]

What happens when "necessary" programs are manipulated so that they fleece the public and line the pockets of the elite?

Watch how the private sector lines up for public money and watch at how our elected official drool when they give it to them.

I'm sick of the machiavellian back room deals that take the most well intentioned efforts and manipulate them for the gain of the few.

That's a very good question and I share your concern. It has me thinking of the documentary Why We Fight. That's the reason I stress the need for transparency.

 

[michaeledward]

I'm still not sure how the government emloyment attracts the honest people while the private sector ends up full of crooks.

Someone else has hinted at the reason for the result you are attempting to describe

Can't happen, because of corporations' "personhood." Corporations may not care about YOUR privacy, but they are entitled to theirs. And they won't monitor themselves, because it may interfere with profits, which is their raison d'etre.

Corporations are not persons. Yet our govenment does extend certain rights, enjoyed by persons, to companies.

Allowing a corporation to enjoy person benefits allows them to dodge paying taxes by opening a new 'headquarters' in a foreign country. This makes great sense to the corporate bottom line; spend a couple of thousand dollars on a mailbox and telephone in Cancun, and save millions in tax burden.

We persons are, occassionally, extended similar benefits - such as the tax deferment into our 401(k) accounts ... but, that benefit to we citizens, allows the corporation to do away with pension plans and funnels billions of our retirement dollars into accounts they manage; and use market timing to get better returns for themselves while not passing them along to us.

You and I do everything we can to make certain we take every tax break available to us. Companies do the same; but on a much larger scale. And with the ways elections are funded, they also have the clout to have certain laws written with the corporation in mind.

So ... it is not that private sector employees are 'crooks' ... but rather, the private sector, itself, is crooked: because it is completely logical for it to be so.

The Public Sector's best interest is to serve the citizenry.
The Private Sector's best interest is to perpetuate itself (which comes at the expense of the citizenry).

 

[crushing]

The Public Sector's best interest is to serve the citizenry.
The Private Sector's best interest is to perpetuate itself (which comes at the expense of the citizenry).

Doesn't the Public Sector's best interest also come at the expense of the citizenry?

In fact, isn't it the Public Sector that has implemented the situation that makes it logical for the Private Sector to become crooked, basically the situation you were attempting to describe?

At any rate, maybe Ron Paul will be the maverick that John McCain was supposed to be. I would like to see Ron Paul give the other Republicans a run for their money and get people thinking about those principles you brought up in the initial post again.

It would be an interesting story to see the general election come down to pro-war Democrat Clinton v. anti-war Republican Paul.

 

[Phoenix44]

I'm still not sure how the government emloyment attracts the honest people while the private sector ends up full of crooks.

It doesn't, and it doesn't. It's just that the private sector's first priority is to make money, and look out for its owners, and that's what honest private sector entities would do. The public sector's first priority is to look out for the public, and that's what honest public sector entities would do.

 

[michaeledward]

Doesn't the Public Sector's best interest also come at the expense of the citizenry?

Yes. A very good observation on your point.

But, we must observe the alternative. If there was no 'Public Sector'; if laisse faire principles were allowed to run unchecked, if true capitalism was the foundation of policy, our society would soon look like that which we cast off some 225 years ago. Wealth and power would accumulate in the hands of the few, who would use that wealth and power to perpetuate itself.

The creation of a Public Sector is an attempt to balance the expenses imposed on the wide citizenry by its existance, against unrestrained capitalism.

I think that all of the politics in our country are concerned with where that balance point exists; rather than eliminating it completely.

In fact, isn't it the Public Sector that has implemented the situation that makes it logical for the Private Sector to become crooked, basically the situation you were attempting to describe?

I think thought needs further exposition. I'm not certain what you are saying.

But - I believe the motivations of the private sector are completely independent of how vigorous or lame the public sector may be. The private sector objectives are always - "Make Money, now and in the future".

Now, you may be saying - couldn't we create a public sector that prevents that objective - I believe we could: Socialism and / or Communism. Those particular forms of group dynamics haven't faired too well, I think.

At any rate, maybe Ron Paul will be the maverick that John McCain was supposed to be. I would like to see Ron Paul give the other Republicans a run for their money and get people thinking about those principles you brought up in the initial post again.

It would be an interesting story to see the general election come down to pro-war Democrat Clinton v. anti-war Republican Paul.

I think labels such as 'pro-war' and 'anti-war' place entirely too much focus on the current situation in Iraq. While they are an accurate short-term description, I think our candidates and presidents should also be mindful of a longer term (wishful thinking, I know).

Clinton could be described as 'Pro-International Invovlement' and Paul as 'Pro-Isolationist'.