2007-10-09 16:51:48 · 12 answers · asked by ? 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Mental Stability.
2007-10-09 16:54:37 · answer #1 · answered by FRANKFUSS 6 · 5⤊ 5⤋
His proposals are not mainstream, and in some areas are not even based on facts.
The points Paul fans like to bring up are
1. End the war
2. Get rid of the Federal Reserve
3. Get rid of Income Tax
4. Get us out of the UN and other multilateral agreements and organisations.
So let's address these points
1. There are many candidates opposed to an indefinite war. There also seem to be a great many Americans who are prepared to make this an election issue. But Paul's stance is both disingenous and unrealistic. Paul states "Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations." This is dishonest in the extreme. No resolution forced the US into action in Iraq. No resolution in the Security Council even authorized an invasion and occupation of Iraq. And no resolution can ever be forced upon the US as the US has an unconditional veto in the Security Council. It is also unrealistic to demand an immediate withdrawl - hence most of the other anti-war candidates are accepting of a phased withdrawl.
2. Paul claims the Federal Reserve System is a private entity. This is absurd. What private entity would allow it's scope to be determined by congress, it's board to be appointed by the president and it's profits to be rebated to Treasury? The Federal Reserve does all this. Paul blames the Federal Reserve for "high inflation" - given the relatively stable price levels of the last 20 years this is absurd. The primary job of the Fed is to adjust the money supply in order to moderate inflation and promote growth. Paul blames the Fed for the Great Depression whereas in reality it was the rigidity of the money supply inherent in the Gold Standard (to which Paul wants to return) that prevented a correction to the marked overcapitalization of the US economy.
3. Paul rants against the IRS without ever really saying what he dislikes about it. He talks a lot about tax cuts being good - the failure of Bush's tax cuts to properly fund his administration would seem to suggest otherwise- but still does not explain why it is necessary to rid ourselves of the IRS. He seems to favor consumption based taxes rather than income taxes. Such a tax is inherently regressive (meaning it hits the poor harder than the rich) as the rich always have a lower propensity to spend and a higher propensity to travel.
4. Paul seems to think that any involvement in multi-lateral cooperation with other countries is an attack on American sovereignty. He ignores the fact that we always enter into any such treaty, agreement or organization freely, that it is signed by our elected administration, and that by sheer virtue of being a superpower we have enormous influence over any such association or agreement. The modern world is becoming more and more global - and that means global multilateral solutions are needed for global issues.
2007-10-10 00:36:10 · answer #2 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Lack of campaign funds and old age are the weaknesses that Ron Paul might lose his quest for the Presidency.
VOTE for your choice as US President on my 360 degrees blog and know if Ron Paul will likely win.
2007-10-09 23:57:08 · answer #3 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
hes an old conservative that believes in small government and personal liberty. new conservatives believe in big government and have a liberal FDR and Woodrow Wilson foreign policy of trying to promote democracy by force.
republicans today have done a 180 and they refuse to admit it. Ron Paul's weakness according to "conservatives" is he is conservative?!
2007-10-10 00:03:31 · answer #4 · answered by Goldwater Conservative 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
He's too anti war. I like Paul on almost every issue except for the war issue. He's the only one that seems serious about cutting the size of government and curbing government spending.
2007-10-09 23:56:49 · answer #5 · answered by - 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
He has remained a Republican while the GOP has gone backwards since Reagan.
The majority of the GOP will not back a progressive Republican anymore.
2007-10-10 00:00:59 · answer #6 · answered by cattledog 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Out in left field with a catcher's mitt on.
2007-10-09 23:57:13 · answer #7 · answered by Tin Foil Fez 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
That he's against the war, against tax rises, against the falling economy. oh wait these are all good things
2007-10-09 23:58:04 · answer #8 · answered by B 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Well I think the fact that he is so nutty he belongs in the loony bin doesn't help him win the election.
2007-10-09 23:55:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Despite the movement, he is either ignored by the mainstream media or relegated to "internet candidate" to discredit him.
2007-10-09 23:54:54 · answer #10 · answered by scalizithaproblem 3 · 2⤊ 4⤋