Ron Paul

[JTalbain]

And what would party would you say he should belong to if he cared? Keep in mind that he was a Libertarian and only had to choose a party so that he could get certain benefits such as fairness in the debate process and more. He has not wavered in his principles ever (since the 70's entry into politics) and he has been way ahead of both parties in insight regarding the failing of the US financial issues as well as many other areas. I have actually folllowed his movements over the years and I do not simply follow the party lines. He truly is worth your research and attention. He is not a "star" like Obama nor an idiot like Bush. He stands alone and always has. Do yourselves a favor and study about him.

In all fairness, he has more in common with Republicans than Democrats. Honestly though, I don't think it's fair to tar every Republican with the same brush. Just the ones in the US Senate.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air.

I guess some of the above is why this country is in such sad shape, But I'm sure Obama will fix things, LOL I'm sure. LOL..........

I like a woman with an opinion! :biggrin1:
Paul's independence is refreshing, however, if running for president he would also run on the "change" ticket his manifesto was so critical of with Obama's 2008 campaign.

If things are to be "fixed", in whatever manner repair can be fashioned through consensus, the responsibility remains with the people. Unfortunately, Paul has not made demands of his supporters, but I would love to see their lip service transformed into agentive action. If the Tea Party can do it....

 

[oldbrownshoe52]

I like him.

 

[SilverTrain]

Honestly, I think Ron Paul has the traditional Republican values at heart more than most of the Republican Party at the moment. He's for small efficient government, not government that favors big business on all fronts. He's for unintrusive government, and for him that extends past the Second Amendment to other civil liberties. Looking at his stances compared to other politicians makes me wonder just how many of the Republicans in Congress have been bought and paid for.

I agree.

So do I.

 

[houtx48]

All this blah blah blah about smaller government is a fucking pipe dream, everytime something goes wrong someone runs to the government to fix it and that is not the way to smaller government.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

All this blah blah blah about smaller government is a fucking pipe dream, everytime something goes wrong someone runs to the government to fix it and that is not the way to smaller government.

QFT!!

 

[SilverTrain]

All this blah blah blah about smaller government is a fucking pipe dream, everytime something goes wrong someone runs to the government to fix it and that is not the way to smaller government.

I wouldn't characterize "smaller government" as a pipe dream. It could happen if enough people really got behind the idea.

While it's true that many who campaign on the need for smaller government, are the world's biggest hypocrites (i..e., Republican politicians) or completely ignorant (i.e. a good chunk of Republican voters) or disingenuous leaning toward hypocritical (i.e., the rest of the Republican voters), there are indeed a good many libertarians who earnestly clamor for smaller government. How many people would actually be happy with the full effect of smaller government is an open question.

 

[JTalbain]

All this blah blah blah about smaller government is a fucking pipe dream, everytime something goes wrong someone runs to the government to fix it and that is not the way to smaller government.

Having the government provide a fix isn't necessarily large government. It's the extent to which the government decides to take control that determines whether the government is excessive.

Take for instance the auto industry. When an industry is in trouble the government has many options available. The smallest government option would be to do nothing and simply let them fail. They could instead pass some laws in order to change the landscape in which they operate, which would be a minimum amount of interference. They could bail them out, which is more intrusive because it takes tax money from those of us not even involved and redistributes them to those businesses. Or, in the case of GM, they can absorb it as an asset of the government. It's all a matter of how important the government thinks it is to save them, and in this case they were too afraid of the long-term economic reprucussions to let them fail.

Many people criticized the government takeover of GM as government overreach. And lest we forget, when Fidel Castro nationalized some of the assets in his country, some of which were owned by American companies, in order to stabilize it economically, we labelled him a communist and embargoed his country. Amazing how the shoe being on the other foot can change things.

 

[BadBoyCanada]

All this blah blah blah about smaller government is a fucking pipe dream, everytime something goes wrong someone runs to the government to fix it and that is not the way to smaller government.

Absolutely. As someone who works for municipal government, I'm flabbergasted what people expect.

 

[deleted15807]

It's not good to sum up a person with one quote. However when he is quoted as saying '‘I Don’t Think We Need Regulators’, I really don't think he belongs in government but on Wall Street. Free-market fundamentalists have been wrong about everything but yet somehow they are still running things.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

I wouldn't characterize "smaller government" as a pipe dream. It could happen if enough people really got behind the idea.

While it's true that many who campaign on the need for smaller government, are the world's biggest hypocrites (i..e., Republican politicians) or completely ignorant (i.e. a good chunk of Republican voters) or disingenuous leaning toward hypocritical (i.e., the rest of the Republican voters), there are indeed a good many libertarians who earnestly clamor for smaller government. How many people would actually be happy with the full effect of smaller government is an open question.

If we were to analyze the current system, how it developed, and realize it is unsustainable, it could happen. However, very few are looking at it that hard.

"Small(er) government', or policies aimed at reducing the size of government could be applied to many areas not directly related to the basic needs of citizens, such as public safety or public education (although both need reform). Government must always provided that which we have come to regard as core services - as the consistent delivery of these services can be used as a marker of general competence, or if incapable, a failed state.

Only the most hard-core libertarians would end the majority of government services, and it would be key to the loss of social cohesion and beginning of civil conflict in their utopia. Imo, most people who lean libertarian are not ideologues and recognize the benefit of government and social services, but want a smaller, more manageable entity.

I have no thoughts about whether the majority of Americans would be happy (are we happy now?) with, for example, rolling back America's international presence or restructuring government services, but I am ready to enter into a national discussion and see if anything springs from it.

 

[SilverTrain]

With you, on that. So when are you launching your campaign? :smile:

If we were to analyze the current system, how it developed, and realize it is unsustainable, it could happen. However, very few are looking at it that hard.

"Small(er) government', or policies aimed at reducing the size of government could be applied to many areas not directly related to the basic needs of citizens, such as public safety or public education (although both need reform). Government must always provided that which we have come to regard as core services - as the consistent delivery of these services can be used as a marker of general competence, or if incapable, a failed state.

Only the most hard-core libertarians would end the majority of government services, and it would be key to the loss of social cohesion and beginning of civil conflict in their utopia. Imo, most people who lean libertarian are not ideologues and recognize the benefit of government and social services, but want a smaller, more manageable entity.

I have no thoughts about whether the majority of Americans would be happy (are we happy now?) with, for example, rolling back America's international presence or restructuring government services, but I am ready to enter into a national discussion and see if anything springs from it.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

With you, on that. So when are you launching your campaign? :smile:

:08: It is a goal.

 

[MoneyForNothing]

For the record, he has said in more private venues that he is more radical than minarchist. He is a normal election politician in the respect that he never says in the context of such events what he most idealizes.

 

[maxcok]

I wouldn't characterize "smaller government" as a pipe dream. It could happen if enough people really got behind the idea.

While it's true that many who campaign on the need for smaller government, are the world's biggest hypocrites (i..e., Republican politicians) or completely ignorant (i.e. a good chunk of Republican voters) or disingenuous leaning toward hypocritical (i.e., the rest of the Republican voters), there are indeed a good many libertarians who earnestly clamor for smaller government. How many people would actually be happy with the full effect of smaller government is an open question.

I think that most people who clamor for smaller government are in favor of doing away with governmental restrictions and control they find "intrusive", and eliminating "wasteful spending" on programs, services, and/or infrastructure that they don't think (or aren't aware) they directly or indirectly benefit from, the hell with everybody else. Then when their situation changes and/or they do want/need something from government, or government fails to protect them or their interests, they quickly change their tune. They're the first to scream that "government's not doing its job". It's an a la carte mentality, "I'm all for the elimination of government and bureaucracy, so long as what's left is there to serve me and my self-interest".

Yes, I, like you, question how many would be happy with the full effect of smaller government.
I don't wonder what the answer is.

 

[midlifebear]

Hmmm . . . we could start by eliminating Head Start and putting preschoolers in work camps where their efforts would be used to pay for their early socialization and pre ed. Just imagine! Similar work programs could be extended to primary, intermediate, and high school, thus eliminating the burden of society to pay for public education? Oh boy! I can hardly wait!

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Hmmm . . . we could start by eliminating Head Start and putting preschoolers in work camps where their efforts would be used to pay for their early socialization and pre ed. Just imagine! Similar work programs could be extended to primary, intermediate, and high school, thus eliminating the burden of society to pay for public education? Oh boy! I can hardly wait!

LOL! :biggrin1:

 

[D_Reuben Stallpisser]

Smaller government is code for let poor people starve, workers die, and forests wither. No politician who wants smaller government ever points out the size of the workforce at the Pentagon, the amount of money collected by defense contractors, or the number of FBI agents required to tap all our telephones.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

Smaller government is code for let poor people starve, workers die, and forests wither. No politician who wants smaller government ever points out the size of the workforce at the Pentagon, the amount of money collected by defense contractors, or the number of FBI agents required to tap all our telephones.

Not true, there are many, like myself, who would make the deepest cuts in the whole defense-intelligence-international military bases/training schools system and reform, but leave intact, social programs. As I mentioned in a previous post, providing core services, particularly those related to quality of life and human capital investment, are extremely important to the stability and success of a society.

But, that's my view as a proponent of smaller government, not beliefs I ascribe to Ron Paul.

 

[Big_Red]

I think, like what is typical these days, a lot of people are confusing the definition of "libertarian". Judging from what I've read online and what I've heard from people directly in person, a libertarian is someone who believes that government should immediately stop regulating and privatize everything. This definition is NOT what is means to be a libertarian!!! Nothing could be further from the truth.

A libertarian believes that, first and foremost, the control of the money supply must be restored to the people. Otherwise, international bankers will continue to control everything through inflation and then deflation, only allowing select few mega corporations to continue operating. What happened in 2008 is a perfect example of this. That's why Ron Paul puts his "End the Fed" campaign at the center of his manifesto.

How many people here know that ALL personal income tax collected does not go towards education? Or roads. Or healthcare. Or welfare. Or social security. Or ANYTHING other than paying the interest owed on treasury debt? Income tax was introduced in anticipation of the Federal Reserve Act, in order to guarantee the credit of the United States. This, in turn, has lead to a nearly unlimited printing of money and issuance of debt.

I won't go into anything else right now, other than to recommend actually reading something Ron Paul wrote, instead of going on some pundit's interpretation of him on CNN or Fox News.