Presidential Candidate Thread: Is Ron Paul good for the country?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Adam_IHB

Adam_IHB

New member
Here's an interesting compilation video of Ron Paul quotes: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8</a> Unfortunately, few people support a small government and fewer people will end up voting for someone like Paul. Paul's only chance may be to side with the religious fanatics in the red states, but it is unlikely they would back him. History shows Americans generally do not side with presidential candidates touting common sense. Even if he were to make it into Office, Congress is likely to go into gridlock (no matter what the majority is) and render him useless. What will it take for America to elect more people like Paul into the Executive and Legislative branches? Or do you feel candidates such as Paul would not be good for the country in the long run?
 
I agree with a lot of what he says, and I'm frustrated that he is the only candidate taking economic issues, namely government spending (foreign military intervention and the war on drugs), seriously.



That said, I don't believe in the relentless privatization of this country for services I deem required for the public welfare, so it would be hard for me to vote for him.



There has to be a medium, but I don't see any candidates offering one.
 
I agree with jw, but will probably still vote for Dr. Paul. Maybe the way to get a happy medium is to have two opposing sides that are forced to reach some sort of compromise. As Adam says, there might be gridlock at first; however, I believe Congress would eventually have to get something done or its members would risk being voted out of office. If there was gridlock and the people felt that Congress was stonewalling the things that they elected Ron Paul to do, it might open the door for more candidates with Paul's positions to step up to the the plate and get elected by promising to move forward.
 
I think Ron Paul is interesting because he is the only candidate I have seen who represents the Goldwater Libertarians in the Republican party. One of George Bush's legacies, in concert with the last congress, will be the Republican's loss of credibility on the fiscal restraint issue. Clinton, a Democrat, was the last to balance the budget. When Hillary campaigns this cycle, the Democrats will actually be able to claim they are the party of fiscal responsibility. In the 2006 campaign, the Republicans were dismissive of this idea, and it did not gain much traction with the average American, but this cycle will be different. If you can't trust the Republicans with the national coffers, the only hope they have of any wins in 2008 is the scare the crap out of everyone and hope they can score some points on national security. Given the failure in Iraq, which will be viewed as a totally a Republican venture, few are going to trust them to responsibly run the military or foreign policy of our country. In short, I don't think it matters much who the Republicans nominate in 2008 for President, they will lose because they have lost credibility on their two defining issues. This also doesn't fair to well for them in the congress, particularly since they have 20 senators running for reelection. They may make some small inroads in the House because the Democrats stole some solidly Republican seats last cycle.
 
<p>waiting-</p>

<p>Congress can't even get the things done that they were elected to do the last time around and I don't think you can get two more opposite sides than Dems vs. Bush; the agendas of both sides are being driven by the edges of the political spectrum. Ron Paul is one of those on the edge. While I like his philosophy and tenacity, he's got a major problem with the credibility of his plans. </p>

<p>As jwbrown77 pointed out, the current size, structure, and complexity of this nation far surpass anything the founders could have envisioned (keep in mind, these are the same people who solution to the labor shortage was... slavery) and Paul's proposals don't include much in the way of 'how' to go along with the 'what' and 'where'.</p>

<p>Example: He proposes two bills to end the "betrayal" of senior citizens and fix Social Security. One would end taxation of all SS benefits, the other would make it illegal to pay out SS benefits to illegals. While the former is a good idea, the latter is suspect because with all the fake social security numbers that have been used over the decades, it is a safe bet that more than a few dollars have been paid in by those same illegals. Furthermore, he plans to cut payroll taxes for younger workers and pay off the SS benefits via cuts in federal spending. Again, it sounds good. But then he also argues for lower taxes, lower federal spending and decreasing the money supply in order to pay off the national debt. How you pay off a $9,000,000,000,000.00 debt, pay out $578,000,000,000.00 in SS benefits (a number sure to keep growing) while reducing the income stream that keeps that program solvent, and strengthen the dollar? According to Ron Paul you reduce taxes, cut federal spending, dismantle the Federal Reserve, end all foreign aid, and in some cases dismantle federal agencies. But he doesn't specify which federal agencies, or how private banks and industry will function without the Fed, what cuts in spending are too be made and by how much, or even a target rate for taxes. </p>

<p>Ron Paul attempts to champion a return to the ideals espoused by the founding fathers and their Constitution, but completely fails to spell out how that will effect the nation and the world as it stands today, much less the details. I whole-heartedly support a return to those ideals, but they have to be the basis for a decision, not the cause. To be blunt, Ron Paul wants to put the addict on a "cold turkey" treatment plan even though it might kill the patient. In contrast to Hillary's plans to pump the addict full of more and better drugs, this might seem like a better plan but neither prevent the addict from finding a New Deal(er) </p>

<p>Edited to add: I agree with IR. In actual practice the Republicans have strayed far away from the Goldwater/Reagan ideals that put them in power in the first place. They will lose and lose big unless they can put forth candidates in all races that can convincingly run against the democrats AND Bush.</p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>I agree with Nude's concern about putting the addict on a cold turkey treatment plan even if it kills him. However, I must say that despite being a life-long democrat I am a very attracted to his openness in this video about our country's support of the wealthy and betrayal of the poor and middle class - I haven't heard that from the republican party very often - and with such apparent sincerity. However, I doubt that his social policy would be appealing to me - the gun statement at the end of the video stood out like a sore thumb to me - how does that have anything to do with economics? I can never seem to find the right balance in a candidate. In the meantime - go Hillary! :)</p>
 
Shameless,but brief hijack of RP thread <a href="http://www.countdownkeychains.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=29&osCsid=49e10d71222f93d936e5b7ae6c15a98e">CountdownKeychains.com</a>
 
Yeah, I don't agree with the absolute interpretation of the second amendment. It's his right to have that stance, and I understand his Constitutional argument for it, but again there has to be a medium somewhere, right?





I mean, am I allowed to stockpile nuclear warheads in my backyard? Why not? Right to bear arms, right?





Besides, I see gun rights as one of those "hot button" issues that distract from the really important work that needs to be done.
 
IMO, You won't see any meaningful movement on gun control for another 20 years. One of the main reasons the Democrats lost congress in 1994 was their stance on gun control turned off voters of the interior West. The just got back a significant block of voters in this region which is now trending toward Democrats. This will continue to be a swing vote region the Democrats must control in order to keep congress. Any gun control legislation will give this region back to the Republicans, and the Democrats know this. Don't expect to see gun control mentioned by Democrats other than those in safe seats, and don't expect them to actually do anything about it.
 
<p>Beside no one wants to buy guns anymore anyways. At least not the legal ones.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/30/smith-wesson-firearms-markets-equities-cx_cg_1030markets40.html?partner=yahootix">www.forbes.com/2007/10/30/smith-wesson-firearms-markets-equities-cx_cg_1030markets40.html</a></p>

<p>"<strong>Smith & Wesson</strong> stock ate lead on Tuesday.</p>

<p>Shares of the gun maker plummeted 39.7%, or $7.97, to close at $12.12 after it announced disappointing preliminary financial results for its second quarter, which ends Oct. 31, as well for its 2008 fiscal year. It blamed abnormally warm fall weather for depressing sales of hunting firearms."</p>

<p> </p>
 
<p>IrvineRenter said: <em>Don't expect to see gun control mentioned by Democrats other than those in safe seats, and don't expect them to actually do anything about it.</em></p>

<p>A perfect summation of all that is wrong with our current political dynamic. Let's look at that without the specifics...</p>

<p><strong>Don't expect to see (issue) mentioned by (party) other than those in safe seats, and don't expect them to actually do anything about it.</strong></p>

<p>Multiply that by 536 (435 Representative + 100 Senators + 1 President), then divide it by 3 (Democrats, Republicans, Others), and the result is endless pursuit of power consolidation in the name of "making a difference" or "restoring balance" or "reclaiming our future", ad nauseum.</p>

<p>I'd say we, as a people, deserve better but we, as individuals, seem to like it this way.</p>
 
EvaL:





I have to go with Krugman on that one. I think the government has taken a pounding reputation wise for what they can and cannot manage based on who has been in charge.





The problem isn't that government can't work. It's that people are either too incompetent to make it work or are maliciously tearing it apart in the name of their ideology.





Frankly, there are so many things screwed in this country if I were president I wouldn't even know where to start.
 
I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.





<a href="http://www.bartleby.com/73/753.html">Henry David Thoreau</a>





It was not Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine who said it as some *cough* Wiki *cough* think.
 
Wait a sec, wait a sec, you mean to tell me that our founding fathers didn't envision the possibilites of an enormous derivatives market, specifically CDO's and SIV's?
 
Politics is all about the compromise, right? Surely we can agree there is no such thing as a "perfect candidate" in satisying everyone's definition; so let's say as a voter, you have a list of the top 100 things which should be improved in this country in order to get back on the "right path".



Do you vote for a candidate that can push towards resolving a large percentage of items on your list or a candidate who will push for few items--one being at the top of your list? Does gun control trump everything else? Even if gun control [or whatever] is at the top of your list will that really solve all of the country's problems?





I am asking because I am curious why people vote the way they do. To many, it seems they are voting as if it is the end all be all.





On a side note, I find this presidential race to be more intriguing than most in recent memory due to the variety of candidates. Personally, I am undecided and just happened upon Ron Paul's video last night so please do not think I'm pushing some sort of political agenda. I'm simply curious about the thoughts IHB community because I respect so many of your opinions.



Edit: By compromise, I'm referring to voter compromises and not candidate compromises. I wholly agree all candidates should take a stand on every issue and do not waver, so the voters can have an honest view of who and what they are choosing.
 
<p>No, the founding fathers wouldn't care about CDOs and SIVs. Their view would be very simple, you drank the kool-aid, deal with the consequences.</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>
 
I've come to the realization, that the majority needs to realize, that they need to be a special interest. The way republic is structured and the way the party system is comingled with the electoral process, small special interests dominate the selection process leading the majority to make major compromises instead of making minor comprises on trival issues. Their choices get dominated by one or two issues instead of being in alignment with 8 issues and compromising on one or two.
 
<p>But no tax on the Kool-aid without representation. </p>

<p>Adam, </p>

<p>I disagree slightly in that I believe a good candidate does not need to compromise. Of course you are not going to capture 100 percent of the vote but those with good ideas and good plans can prevail. The problem is that all the candidates are superficial and never want to commit to anything (no guts no glory). </p>

<p>Example: JFK, LBJ (pre-Vietnam War), Reagn, and Clinton. </p>

<p> </p>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top