Posted on 05/11/2011 5:19:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
The man who likely has done more than anyone to put the libertarian philosophy of freedom and small government on the political agenda probably will make another run for the presidency: U.S. Rep. Ron Paul.
Paul is always upbeat, but lately he's had more reason to be, as he sees libertarian ideas bubbling up from the grass roots.
"People outside of Washington are waking up," he told me, "and they're getting the attention of a few in Washington."
Paul has been in Congress more than 20 years, and much of that time he's played a lonely role, often being the only representative to cast "no" vote on bills to expand government.
"Twenty years ago, there weren't very many people around that would endorse these views. So ... I'm very pleased with what's happening. There are more now, but the problems are so much greater."
Because bigger government creates built-in resistance to cuts.
"Everybody has their bailiwick they want to protect: 'We know the spending is bad. But don't touch my stuff.'"
The biggest growth is in entitlements. Recently, after constituents yelled at them, Republicans backed off on their reasonable plan to try to make Medicare sustainable.
"This is one of the places where good conservatives and good libertarians have come up short. ... We get a bad rap that we lack compassion. A liberal who wants to take your money and give it to somebody else ... grab(s) the moral high ground."
At the recent Conservative Political Action Conference, Paul floated a novel idea: "Would you consider opting out of the whole system under one condition? You pay 10 percent of your income, but you take care of yourself -- don't ask the government for anything."
The CPAC crowed applauded. But liberals like MSNBC's Chris Matthews mocked him, sneering that anyone who accepted Paul's offer would have no access to federal highways, air safety, food inspection, cancer research or defense.
Paul laughs at Matthews' shallow criticism. Ever the constitutionalist, he'd like to privatize the federal highways someday, but he notes that even now they are largely financed by the gasoline tax -- essentially a user fee. As for air and food safety, he's sure the airlines and food companies have no desire to kill their customers and that careless companies would be disciplined by competition and the tort system. He claims that government stands in the way of a lot of cancer research.
In other words, it's foolish to assume that just because the government doesn't do something, that it wouldn't be done at all.
"(Matthews is) using fear," Paul said. "They all do that ... use fear to intimidate."
A member of my studio audience asked Paul about the coming vote to raise the debt ceiling.
"They're probably going to ... (but) we shouldn't raise it. We should put pressure on them. If you took away the privilege of the Federal Reserve to buy debt, this thing would all come to an end because if you couldn't print the money to pay for the Treasury bills, interest rates would go up and Congress then would be forced (to cut spending)."
But smart people say we need the Fed to keep the economy going.
"The people who benefit from big government spending love the Fed. ... The Fed is very, very detrimental. You cannot have big, runaway government -- you cannot have these deficits -- if you don't have the Fed."
We libertarians say government is too big, but one thing it is supposed to do is provide for the common defense. Paul criticizes conservatives who support an aggressive foreign policy and says much of what is called "defense" is really offense. "I don't want to cut any defense," he said.
He added: "You could cut (the military budget) in half and even (more) later on because there's nobody likely to attack us. Who's going to invade this country?"
Ever the optimist, Paul says, "We have a tremendous opportunity now because most people realize government's failing ... ."
Yet he's a realist: "I think ... our problems are going to get worse ... before we correct them."
Post direct quotes or shut up.
That’s all you got?
So getting caught in one lie you falll back on your dislike of the military.
Real cute thee slick.
And yes, my service was of more use than you.
You make grand statements that you cannot prove and you answer NO questions. I think the phrase is "Put up or shut up".
Oh, and calling terrorism a ‘boogeyman’ is a hallmark talking point of truthers lately.
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:derm/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change
I’ve already told you I disagree with your initial premise of what it is to be Christian. If your initial premise is wrong everything that follows will be wrong.
Do I need to spell it out in crayons?
You're the one saying that government has no business keeping sodomites from marrying, that makes it your job to provide historical support for it.
I, wagglebee, believe the State has a duty to tell people who can associate with whom. I find the Constitutional principle of free association to be false and unchristian.
Sign here X_______________________________
Post a quote . You said "I’ve already told you I disagree with your initial premise of what it is to be Christian".
Quote me.
While looking for a quote, answer my question: Is it a Christians duty to stand by and allow society to go to hell in a handbasket?
Prove that sodomy is biologically the same as regular heterosexual pairing and your homomarriage thing may have traction.
Well...now I've been in 24 years...and I can tell you THAT isn't true. We complain more than anyone's business!
Sit around the barracks before going out into the field and you will get an earfull...LOL.
LOL, yeah I did forget about barracks talk.
And talk about the chow and discussion as to whether we should attempt to contact the chow, do battle with it, or surrender to it.
[Hint, never surrender to the so called jello.]
What I remember most was doing fire missions.
When we were doing what we were intended to do -blast objects to tiny quivering shreds through application of high explosive- we were in our glory.
Stick us back in the motor pool doing dog and pony show busy work stuff and we did gripe about that.
Everything implied with that question supports my description of your position.
What does that have to do with free association?
Clintonesque, aren't you? He did enough damage to the military. We don't need more.
If we want to cut spending, there are far better places to begin. Military spending should be the first and last thing the government funds.
It's very frustrating to know that many conservatives are so afraid of the boogeyman terrorists, they are willing to let our country go broke.
"boogeyman terrorists"?!?! You mean like the ones who took down the Twin Towers? Or was that a figment of my imagination?
What about cutting spending like not bailing out GM and banks? What about killing obmamacare, medicare fraud, medicaid fraud, the department of education, cut social services programs like welfare, food stamps, and other hand outs that create entitlement mentality.
Most of these folks are the same ones who own lots of guns and ammo and are always talking bout how so and so better not mess with them or they'd use it...so what are they so afraid of again? Ah, yes...it is homosexuals. As long as we have massive military spending and no homosexuals it is fine if we go broke.
You are clearly on the wrong site. How you lasted this long is beyond me, but here's a link to your alternate site where you'll feel right at home.... This is the place for you.
Really? Where? Social liberalism supports homosexual rights, abortion and socialism/nanny state. Christ, and the Constitution supports those things?
So, Square social liberalism with Christ, our Constitution and our nations Christian roots. You can't. But I want to see you make a pretzel of logic so try.
What does ‘free association’ have to do with marriage at all?
Prove it is biologically the same, you’ll find out.
Society falls from within. We can bounce back from an economic crisis, but if we don’t have the morals, we WILL end up in anarchy and what good is the money going to do us then, even if we do have it, which we won’t.
Fiscal stability cannot happen or last without moral stability. Morals come first. Without moral restraint, someone or something is needed to enforce order and security and show me one tyrannical government enforcing their brand of order and security that is flourishing and worth living under.
FReepers fear nobody. We just are awake enough to recognize the dangers facing us and determined to warn people about them. If you want to continue to live in your pot induced stupor, go right ahead, but you’d be more welcome at DU. They think just like you do.
Come to think of it, what IS your screen name over there?
Should the State be responsible for pairing hetro couples?
Or should people be free to marry whom they want?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.