Questions on Ron Paul?

Question

What would his economic ideas do to the American economy and the education system?

He wants to get rid of the IRS, the Department of Education, Medicare/ Medicade, Social Security and other organizations calling them unnecessary baggage. Assuming he was elected to office do you believe his plans to completely un-regulate Americas healthcare system, education system, and tax system would help America by creating more jobs and incentives to go to private schools and donate money to people who need it or completely screw over the poor and needy?
Do you think he over-estimates the nations good will? Or do you believe that this total move towards governmental deregulation would pay off?

And yeah I'm pretty sure he won't be elected, but think of this as scenario in which he had a good chance of being elected, or already has been.

Answer 1

The office of presidency is not a decidership. Ron Paul has some great ideas, and if he cannot do all of them on his own, he is encouraging more and more people to run, and do things the right way. Unfortunately, the poor and needy are already screwed. And if things go as they are, the middle class will also be gutted. If a national healthcare system was enacted, while we still use borrowed, hyperinflationary money, how would that work out in the long run? If the core problems are not understood, the side issues that everyone seems to bring up, are just band-aids at best, or distractions at worst.

We have almost no manufacturing left in the country, in Canadian dollars, the DOW is really ~25% lower than what it seems it is. We are spending "fiat" money that our great grandchildren might be paying off, for a war that had nothing to do with 9/11. We still haven't found Osama, yet a lot of people running don't care -- and it looks like more than a few voting, are just plain scared of "terrorism", and would like to vote someone in that can start more wars. They don't get it! We go into more countries, and piss more people off, we get more terrorists, it's that simple.

Illegal immigrants (which some candidates like Hunter, Tancredo, and Paul take seriously), cause a huge burden on our economy. They depress wages -- every time you hear "they do job's American's won't do", actually means, we American's can't afford to do them anymore. Why? It's due to a underprivileged class of non-tax paying, non-voting, almost in anarchy class of workers that HAVE to be hard-working, they have to in order to survive. We must open a new school almost every other day in California, because of the sheer number of children added per year. They often don't pay into SS, or medicare, but they can often get some of the benefits. They are taking advantage of us, and big business is taking advantage of them.

Nearly everything he wants to "get rid of", can be replaced at the local level. Your state can provide healthcare to achieve a certain level of civility and general welfare. Your state can collect a larger income or property tax, that can be apportioned for needs in your state. The Dept of Education wasn't started until 1980 I think, and our school system wasn't the worst in the world at the time. It has gotten bad now, because what works for an area, might not work for the whole nation, but that's how most "federal" things are applied. If vouchers could be given, and schools would actually have to compete, of course the level of education would go up. Sure some people might get screwed, but right now, EVERYONE is screwed except the ones rich enough to not have to worry about "public" anything.

If people aren't good, and good-will doesn't remain a virtue here, then America is not worth saving. A government cannot force it's citizens to show good-will to others, that comes from proper education, upbringing, and solid families... along with compassion for others. You also have to be relatively comfortable, and not in so much debt that you are willing to screw your neighbor to make a buck. If you could keep 30-40% of your income that just gets blown away right now, wouldn't you feel happier? Couldn't you pay for a few more things? Save a little more?

So, let Paul take care of two or three things, set the course correction for future administrations, and we can once again feel that our house is in order. Or one can take the normal course of action, and vote for any of the media appointed "front-runners", with almost no difference between them, in order to serve global and corporate interests over you and me.

The only thing I'm not 100% clear about Paul is, the CIA/FBI situation. I know he says to get rid of them too, but on the other hand, it doesn't seem like a priority that he talks about much. Perhaps he means to revamp them, or combine them, as a government does need an intelligence community -- one thing that I don't think can ever be done right at the state level.

If people weren't so cynical, Ron would be the only one that mattered in this election, and deep down, a lot know that.

EDIT: commanderbuck383 - if he's a "cut and run surrender clown", then why did Bush say that finding OBL is not a priority? And then why did he board an aircraft carrier with a huge banner that said "Mission Accomplished"? I thought we won? Why are we still there? How do you "win" an occupation? We even killed Saddam (I'm sorry, the Iraqi government did, but still). We didn't even find any WMD's of significance. So again, who's the clown?

Answer 2

You say he would eliminate the IRS correct -he would do it after he made budget cuts like stop foreign aid to other countries close many bases oversea -end iraq war - which would pay for it ( the IRS is not the only source for tax revenue -every time you fill up =tax everytime you make a call =tax .- everytime you are on a ntl highway= tax )so it is not impossible actually a very well thought out plan will do it and ron paul has one

next you state he would get rid of the dept of education - Yes again correct - why do you need the federal govt to tell states how to teach their children- wouldnt that be better resolved locally ? doesnt it create bureaucracy and aqrent many many schools a mess because of this one umbrella policy - let state and local officials decide whats best for the kids because they have a greater interest in how those kids turnout .

you then state medicaid (which is already provided by states not federal the last I looked ) so it is a non -issue- and medicare/ SSI-Ron Paul is not saying he will pull anyones benefits away who are on them or who are close to being on them-with his balancing budget and cutting other spending it will easily pay for his plans while refunding money to those that paid in - it is a very well thought out plan for more info go to lewrockwell.com
I think that if peoples pocketbooks are healthy across the board there will be no problems with ron pauls plans - the needy can be taken care of by the states /local govts and they pretty much already are -
The only thing I fear his the continuation of the status quo - we can do better and thats why I want ron paul

Answer 3

As for the economy... you should try and take a few days to research how inflation-less currency.. is a positive thing.
The dollar is worthless because the price of everything goes up- everything. How many warships does a country need? You can't talk about the economy without mentioning the strain we are putting on the next generation with this war.
BBBBBIIIIIIIILLLLLLLIIIIIIIIOOOONNNNNS
On Health care...... Like all corporations owned . They pay lobbyist who convince congressman to use taxpayer money to fund their big business'. They have monopolies in some of the biggest markets today. With free-trade we could have more competition which means lower prices.... mom and pops are going down to wal-mart and other giants. We should not have to compete with 3.5c per hr. Watch his interviews. He not only explains in detail how if we suddenly started saving these billions overseas and make corporations pay their fair share.
We might have enough money to lower taxes.
Prosperity is in the ideas of the people. Mainstream media would suffer financially under Paul's administration and some wonder why he is not mentioned.
By the way....
Income tax is illegal. look it up.
__No disrespect---- (:Vote peace:)

Answer 4

1) The IRS (other than sporadic periods during the Civil War and from 1894-1895) has only been in existence since 1913. That means for 126 years the country got along without it. Don't see why we couldn't again. Also, the Federal tax code largely serves as a means of artificial social architecture rather than just a means of raising money for the Fed. (That could easily have been done with a flat income tax and no deductions, with an allowance for those beneath a prescribed "poverty level", and wouldn't necessitate the gigantic bureaucracy we have now.)
2) Department of Education is unconstitutional. Regulation of education was given to the states to decide. Leave it to the states.
3) Social Security I would gladly do away with (including surrendering the money I've paid in for 21 years) in exchange for having that money back to invest in a better yielding investent (401K, stocks, bonds etc.) And again, less government means lower taxes.

I tend to think people who desire to see more "Big Brother" intervention from the Federal government are those who distrust their fellow Americans intellect. (Elitists in other words)

Answer 5

Part of the problem with discussing a Ron Paul Presidency is that his philosophy is so out of touch with other members of Congress.

For the past 80 years or so, this country has been very presidency-centered in its view of politics. The Framers, however, never intended for the presidency to be the most powerful branch. If you read the writings of the Framers, they expected that most power would rest with the House of Representatives (of course that was at a time when the typical district had 30,000 people of whom fewer than 10,000 were eligible to vote as opposed to today where districts have 600,000 people and 500,000 voters).

I think that, if Ron Paul were elected President, we would see a major shift in power back to Congress. There would be enough votes in Congress to over-ride any possible vetoes. As such, Ron Paul would not get to implement most of his platform. The question would be whether such a shift in power was temporary or permanent.

Answer 6

Well said, THOMAS. Standing Ovation. The one thing I am convinced of is that what we are doing isn't working. I will not be voting for more of the same.

Answer 7

Well said Thomas and Rooster, I'll add on

The phasing out of the IRS would not eliminate said taxes only the income tax which is used to pay back interest to the FED for printing their worthless money.. Paul will reduce government spending to pay of the national debt, instead of placing the burden on taxpayers.. so taxes will be low for everyone

Ron Paul wants to end Federal government interference in public education (not the public education system itself lol) this will eliminate the politicizing and corporatism. There's been a decline in America's education system for the past 30 years.

Teachers/parents know what's better for their children opposed to Washington bureaucrats and the states have departments of education,. If there was no fed government interference, then state departments would have more flexibility/funds to address the problems of their state in specific areas... Paul has already stated that he will provide funding for through the form of tax credits for those in need.

On Medicare/Medicade:
First of all address the problem
"One of the major weaknesses of the Medicare program is that seniors do not have the ability to use Medicare dollars to cover the costs of prescription medicines, even though prescription drugs represent the major health care expenditure for many seniors.
Medicare MSAs give those seniors who need to use Medicare funds for prescription drugs the ability to do so without expanding the power of the federal bureaucracy or forcing those seniors who currently have prescription drug coverage into a federal one-size-fits-all program."

-source Ron Paul library

And Paul has an effective solution to this..

"Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that enhances senior citizens' ability to control their health care and use Medicare money to pay for prescription drugs. This legislation accomplishes these important goals by removing the numerical limitations and sunset provisions in the Medicare Medical Savings Account (MSAS) program so that all seniors can take advantage of the Medicare MSA option.
Medicare MSAs consist of a special savings account containing Medicare funds for seniors to use for routine medical expenses, including prescription drugs. Seniors in a Medicare MSA program are also provided with a catastrophic insurance policy to cover non-routine expenses such as major surgery. Under an MSA plan, the choice of whether to use Medicare funds for prescription drug costs, or other services not available under traditional Medicare such as mammograms, are made by seniors, not by bureaucrats and politicians.
Medicare MSAs will also ensure seniors access to a wide variety of health care services by minimizing the role of the federal bureaucracy. As many of my colleagues know, an increasing number of health care providers have withdrawn from the Medicare program because of the paperwork burden and constant interference with their practice by bureaucrats from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (previously known as the Health Care Financing Administration). The MSA program frees seniors and providers from this burden, thus making it more likely that quality providers will remain in the Medicare program!
Mr. Speaker, the most important reason to enact this legislation is seniors should not be treated like children and told what health care services they can and cannot have by the federal government. We in Congress have a duty to preserve and protect the Medicare trust fund and keep the promise to America's seniors and working Americans, whose taxes finance Medicare, that they will have quality health care in their golden years.

However, we also have a duty to make sure that seniors can get the health care that suits their needs, instead of being forced into a cookie cutter program designed by Washington-DC-based bureaucrats! Medicare MSAs are a good first step toward allowing seniors the freedom to control their own health care.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to provide our senior citizens greater control of their health care, including the ability to use Medicare money to purchase prescription drugs, by cosponsoring legislation to expand the Medicare MSA program"

Eliminate Socail Security? not exaclty..
This explains his position:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul215....

Our government has spent billions of dollars overseas, yet social security is going bankrupt and the number of baby boomers is estimated to double. If we had followed Paul’s plan of keeping our own money in a savings account specifically for retirement, with no government intervention… then the current presidential candidates wouldn’t be debating whether or not to, tax us more, just so we could get our own money back..

You've made a valid point of Paul "over estimating the nations good will" but where is our governments "good will"?

-A welfare system, which was supposed to help people escape poverty, that has instead turned into a poverty trap that spans generations (Bobby Kennedy wanted to get rid of this as well)

-A social security system where instead of saving our contributions, the politicians have spent them all

-The decreasing value of the dollar, hurts the middle class and poor, Our governments spending has reduced the value of the dollar by 40%.. how a poor person is supposed to buy food/clothes when they cost so much more because of the decreased purchasing power of the dollar?

The 'public good' exists because of the people....not the government and as I pointed out already many of Paul's plans provide tax credits for those in need..

Answer 8

I am really concerned that people are actually supporting this man. This cult-like adoration is beyond belief. He is a full-blown Libertarian, masquerading as a Republican and getting some big bucks in the bank. Do you notice that they don't mention that he wants to legalize drugs, but it could be the real behind-the-scene motivator. His ideas are so far out there and I wonder if most of his supporters are Republican Bush-haters who won't admit it.

Answer 9

Yes. We need less government...not more! Ron Paul would be a breath of fresh air to this country! Our current government is COMPLETELY corrupt. It is taxing us to death and wasting every penny they steel from us! Go Ron Paul! Go!

Answer 10

I believe, he can do it and we will help him to do it.
Go Ron Paul