...by what he said on last night's Jay Leno show ? I was never really an avid, well informed supporter of Paul's, but liked his ideas on Iraq and strict adherence to Constitutional ideals...
...but WoW. The guy wants to simply do away with ALOT of institutions of government. Dept Energy, Dept Education, the IRS etc etc...I think his ideas work fine for government on a small scale...but I just don't see how such a philosophy can be SUCCESSFULLY applied to governing the USA. It was an interesting interview.
2007-10-31 08:08:41 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think I will check his website and see if he offers up any details on exactly how he plans on funding the numerous things the Fed does that simply involve maintenance of American infrastructure. I'm not even talking about social programs.... Thanks guys...You (typically) Conservative responders are actually being reasonable right now.
2007-10-31 08:17:05 · update #1
cynical : it surprises me how blatantly illiterate you are. I never said I 'liked' him. I was just interested in what he had to say.
Please learn to read.
2007-10-31 08:57:27 · update #2
Ron Paul has pie-in-the-sky ideas just as you illuded to. They are not practical and would mean near anarchy if they were to be implemented. Those agencies he wants to dump are for protection of people and resources. The reason they exist in the first place is because people were abusing others. His wacky ideas woudn't make it out of committee let alone to the floor of either the Senate or the House for a full vote. That means by not getting out of Congress there is no way he, if by some strange miracle was elected, would be in a position to sign any of it into law.
17th Century French philosopher, Voltaire said "Common sense is uncommon". Ron Paul and his supporters are precicely what Voltaire was talking about. No common sense there at all.
2007-10-31 08:26:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
The IRS can be eliminated with a flat tax.
Dept. of Education, Energy as well as all of the federal departments that exist now that are not specifically spelled out in the constitution as a federal responsibility fall onto the responsibility of the individual states not the federal government per the constitution.
2007-10-31 15:23:27 · answer #2 · answered by sprcpt 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Not surprsied at all.
A lot of the views are shared by the Constitution Party.
The Dept of Education was created by Congress with stiff opposition.
Somehow, we managed quite well without the IRS in the past.
Not sure of the effect if everything he proposes would pass.
2007-10-31 15:12:50 · answer #3 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
The government always grows. Can you think of the last time we got rid of one of the parts. IF anything they simply shape shift into other departments and increase in size all the time. Hes really not that right wing. He doesnt want to control abortion, or prayer in school. Americans will never elect him because they like the babysitting the government does for them.
2007-10-31 15:19:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I missed all but the end of the show. I admit I was surprised to see him shaking Johnny Rotten's hand. If they don't rush that image onto a poster, they don't know how to run a campaign.
2007-10-31 15:23:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, and the funny thing is that conservatives continually write him off as having supporters from the Democratic side. Yeah right, he's more right wing than all of the Republicans running, with the exception of his non-intervention policies.
2007-10-31 15:14:08 · answer #6 · answered by Frank 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
it will work better than what they have now, the depts you mentioned are controled by the money interests aka bankers. many of the depts are used by bankers to enforce their agendas, which has nothing to do with protecting or keeping america prosperous, rememeber there was never a welfare system before the federal reserve was enacted and I don't remember reading any cases of severe poverty without it, considering if there were, you can bet they would exploit the info to prove their point of needing big government.
these dept people do not want these depts erased it is their money, they need to formulate or make people believe these depts are needed, but truly they are only a cash cow for bueracrates. they seldom do anything of real value for the people but surly provide a service to corporations who use these depts for their own selfish ends.
remember the federal government in washington is a corporation, it is not a government for the people anymore, that was lost back in 1933 I believe. a corporation is formed for the sole purpose of profit and taking money via taxation for all these depts is just that to make a profit, these depts are used to manipulate the markets, which are far from truly free.
when they use the term free market that is an ambiguous word, it can mean different things to different people. a free market to me means that government stays out of it and doesn't use it's position to give special help to special interests groups to get ahead of everyone else who are playing by the rules.
it means not punishing people who want to trade across the seas with tariffs or other unfair taxes. it means not punishing people for being productive and prosperous by taxing wages. it means what it is supposed to mean. the elites mean it is free in the sense they are free to manipulate the markets anyway they choose to maximize profit and control.
if they would take the money used for armanents and weapons and the military expendutures, we would have an additional 3 trillion dollars to use for problems here at home, that is 3 trillion with a T. that is how much they spend yearly on just military and armenants. it is big profit for the military industrial complex as it is called, they have no desire to see it changed, even if they have to create fake wars to keep people seeing a need for their services that they charge exoribant prices for, considering there is no competition for their services and goods for war or preparations for it.
of course they will critize anyone who wants to lessen government, alot of profiteers would have to start playing in a fair market and play by the rules, and that would destroy their monsterous profits. they would actually have to produce quality products at competitive prices, this is something they won't tolerate if they have anything to say about it.
I admire ron paul for his good heart, but I doubt he can ever win, with electronic voting machines and such I can't imagine that the people running those machines and getting big profits from overcharging the taxpayers for their meager services, would allow him to win. but he has given people who listen an education about how their government is supposed to work.
by the way any problems with regard to welfare recipients and medical help that poorer people need, etc, these can be handled at the state or local level. if everyone who works has more money via no more federal income taxes (which are illegal and based on fraud and no one is required to pay a debt based on fraud) they will have money to start up businesses and hire people to do work needing done and thus poor people will have more oppertunities to work and make a living without welfare or at least with the least amount required.
If we could cut our taxations to the government via licenses fees, permits, income taxations, property taxes, (which all these are illegal) I would have money to hire people to do a ton of stuff around here, and so would my neighbors and my income is modest compared to my neighbors who have way more then me, and pay alot more taxes.
they could hire me, to clean their houses, yards etc, and thus if I don't have to pay a tax on my wage I can buy my own medicines that I need or pay my own health insurance. all these scare tactics about the poor etc, these people are made poor because of heavy taxation of people's wages. the best way to destroy a nation is through heavy taxation. here in usa we pay half our wages to taxes. most which are illegal and only fund fat cats back pockets and do not solve problems they are meant to solve in fact they make the problems worse.
RRRRR
2007-10-31 15:54:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Me not at all. His ideas make perfect sense as all the agencys you mention are basically violations of the Constitution. I would say its better to have someone who actually beleives in getting rid of these agencys (even though it would be almost impossible) then someone who has no interests in changing anything!
2007-10-31 15:13:20 · answer #8 · answered by TyranusXX 6 · 5⤊ 3⤋
No, he has always said that. It surprises me that many people like you only like Ron Paul because he is anti-war.
2007-10-31 15:22:10 · answer #9 · answered by cynical 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
His ideas are like the metric system, Americans don't like it.
2007-10-31 15:14:09 · answer #10 · answered by Huevos Rancheros 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋