Posted on 09/13/2007 9:02:42 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Last week the Republicans had another debate, this one on FOX News. Not much has changed in the last few months; Rudy Giuliani is still in the lead in the polls and Fred Thompson is still in second despite the fact he didn't announce his intentions to run until a few days ago. What has changed, and changed for the worse, is the surging popularity of a Texas Congressman by the name of Ron Paul. I've been running into normal, intelligent people who support Paul, and it really scares me.
The reason Paul is as popular as he is has to do largely with his sudden support from Democrats and I have to admit, when I didn't know much about him I thought he sounded like a good candidate. He wants to end the Iraq war, have tighter borders, lower taxes and decrease spending, what's not to like? The problem doesn't lie with his policies and ideas, but rather his execution of said policies. How to end the war in Iraq: immediate pullout not only from Iraq, but from the whole of the Middle East. Never mind the slaughter that will occur with our exit. Paul, by the way, denies that this will happen, as the people saying it will are the same that said it would be an easy win. It was a mistake and we never should have been there.
He has more than one unworkable policy. Who else here wants to abolish the FDA? Dr. Paul is your man. His case against the FDA is that they take taxpayer money and are supposed to regulate the food and drugs coming into the country and those produced here, but there are still cases that get by them. Obviously, he claims, we would be better off with no Federal regulation. Corporations should police themselves. Paul is a big fan of the free market and wants to see an end of just about every federal agency that does anything useful or helpful. DEA? Gone. Medicare/Medicaid? History. IRS? The government has no right to take your money.
Paul is such a fan of the free market and letting businesses do whatever they want that during a recent session of Congress he was the one dissenting vote when Congress decided to stop giving tax money to corporations profiting from the genocide in Sudan. It seems pretty cut and dry, companies are making money off of a genocide. Why would you give them money to keep doing that? Paul's answer: We shouldn't tie the hands of corporations by limiting their business dealings. That pretty much covers foreign policy for Paul.
Paul doesn't like the federal tax system and actually signed a document circulated by the National Libertarian Organization a few years ago affirming this belief. Lower taxes is one of the tried and true methods of getting people to vote for you. The problem with Paul saying he'll get lower taxes is that it's not entirely true. Yes, your income will be less taxed, but Paul wants to raise the sales tax to 23 percent at the least. Have fun being poor, because you won't be able to afford anything under Paul's administration. What would be really interesting is seeing how much price gouging we would see with no regulatory bodies, but I'd rather not think about it.
More interesting is Paul's absolute belief in the free market. He wants to see an end of public service agencies and governmental controls. Private post offices, for example, would be bought up by companies and if you're not served by the same post office as say, the people sending you bills, you might never get the bill. Or you might incur a fee when you get the bill. Imagine all roads in the country being up for sale: Paul sees a future where this has happened and thousands of toll booths are being constructed across the country.
We wouldn't have a nutcase presidential candidate without him being a racist, not these days anyways. Paul luckily fits that bill. He's made his case against the African American community known very well, starting with this comment back in 1992, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." Later he would say the age to be prosecuted as an adult should be lowered to 13 because "black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." It's no wonder White Supremacist Website and forum Stormfront.org has come out in support of Paul, as has former Ku Klux Klan member and politician David Duke.
Here's a list of things Paul wants to end because they have had failures in the past, or he sees them as useless: CIA, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, FDA, IRS, Medicare, FBI, DEA, UN, NATO, NAFTA and CAFTA. That's the short list. This is my biggest problem with Ron Paul. He offers no constructive thoughts, only destructive ones. He doesn't think a single thing can be made to work if it failed even once. Bad intelligence? Cut it out completely, don't try to reform it.
Overall, Paul has no workable ideas. He wants to return to a gold standard, which would destroy the US economy. He wants to cut nearly every government department and build a giant wall (not a fence) on our border with Mexico. I honestly don't understand how people can think he would make a good president.
As usually with libertarians trying to play conservatives you brand anyone who does not favor your exact position as a some socialist off shoot or market strangler. And as ususal you are wrong. I love free markets and want the government shrunk down more than a little. Big difference is I want it done right so as not to create more problems that would otherwise be solved.
Now as to the FDA etc. There are some things that need regulation, be it the FDA or some other entity. Drugs is one of those. We aren't talking a defective TV here, that has an issue and you miss Monk or the Super Bowl.
Let me point something out in you statement:
If drugs weren't regulated then the responsibility for protecting an individual from dangerous effects of drugs would fall on the company selling the drug and the individual buying the drug. If an individual was injured, he or she could sue for damages so the company has a strong incentive to making safe drugs. And consumer interest groups would form to advise consumers.
The later part of that is important, because we have that now. There are groups and individuals can sue. I guess you missed that whole Vioxx thing as well as others. Has that made drug companies more responsible? No, they just up their costs and pass them on after each lawsuit. And guess what, that's even with the FDA...
Like I said, don't give me pie in the sky, give me solutions, don't give me platitudes, give me plans, realistic ones. That's what a responsible true conservative is after.
I completely agree.
In trying to understand Ron Paul's position on this, one should remember that he is a doctor, and as such has no doubt seen some shortcomings in the drug approval process. Either some were approved too quickly, or some have been withheld too long. Either way, I see this particular agency as being somewhat political, and has been influenced by the drug companies and consumer groups alike.
I also see President Ron Paul not actually disbanding the FDA right out of the gate, but rather holding that option over their heads while reorganizing top management to be less political in nature.
The threat of more severe action can be a very useful tool.
Well said
He would make a great cabinet appointment in the area of tax and regulatory policy however....
Source?
I agree.
But some should be abolished.
I'm waiting for Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney to tell me which ones they are going to abolish. Then I'll make up my mind how to vote.
Pretty much a dem would do. Your act is getting very transparent. Say hi to $0R0$ for me.
Pray for W and Our Troops
I was a teenager during VN and not particularly alert politically, but even so recognized that we were not taking the gloves off and going for the win. "Care Bears rules of engagement" brought a smile. I believe that the limited warfare invented by Rand Corporation has more to do with keeping our citizens out of the engagement than winning. It sucks, actually, considering our record since WWII.
Our using Iraq as a killing field for terrorists is just plain wrong, our reasons for going there were specious, and we ought to get the hell out. Our job now is to convince the Iraqis that they're in charge, declare victory, and go.
That’s better, an idea, not a slogan.
I can see such an entity. There has to be something, and to be honest, I think a private industry watchdog could work, with laws set to support it and enforce against violators.
I have no problem with shrinking government but the things that even the worst agencies do well need to be maintained.
Great example, one I am familiar with since I was in education is the Department of Education. It does suck, but maintaining a national standardized in curriculum is in the best interest. This could be done with in another department or a small agency of 50-100 people, not 20,000. Just to make sure there is a uniform standard since education is important to our economic and social well being.
I do.
DEA? Gone. Medicare/Medicaid? History. IRS? The government has no right to take your money.
Agree, agree, and agree.
He wants to see an end of public service agencies and governmental controls
So do I.
CIA, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, FDA, IRS, Medicare, FBI, DEA, UN, NATO, NAFTA and CAFTA
With the exceptions of the CIA and a drastically reduced FBI, I agree with every single one of these.
Cut it out completely, don't try to reform it.
There's always a few idiots who think you can polish a turd. That's 'reform' in the Government sense.
He wants to cut nearly every government department and build a giant wall (not a fence) on our border with Mexico
The first idea is excellent and the second even better.
The only area I differ with Congressman Paul is the war. If he came around to my way of thinking he'd be an ideal Presidential candidate.
L
Comparing the quality of American education since the formation of the DoE, do you think it has gotten
(a) better, or
(b) worse??
L
The yahoos are always screeching that they want Constitutional governance. But when you tell them what the really means, they pee their pants.
And the facts that the only group of people that doctors hate more than the AMA are pharma marketers shouldn't thrown any sort of monkey wrench in your plan. Nor that the fact that the AMA receives a sizable chunk of money from pharma companies every year for providing physician data to the companies.
The simplicity with which the Paulites are approaching these problems gives me more pause than Paul's ideas.
And that still doesn’t take care of the big problem. He is wrong on protection this nation.
So nice try, but no deal.
Now this is an interesting post.
What does Constitutional governance really mean? (I've got a pair of Depends handy, so fire away)
And are you in favor of Constitutional government, or opposed to it??
Centrist Americans who like their McSocialism government programs would do more than pee their pants. They would run to the voting booths to pull the lever for their government security blankets, safety nets and the status quo.
That’s why RP is not a viable candidate.
Do I like the situation we’re in? Not at all.
By all means let's be gracious to the a$$hole who paid for the slaughter of 3,000 Americans on 9-11.
Bush should have had the SS shoot him in the head on national TV.
L
You’ve got a problem, friend.
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.