Are you suggesting the presidency and the executive branch don't hold large sway over, for example, the justice department and the SEC? By appointments alone, he would gut our regulatory agencies. Corporations would have free reign. How do I know this? 'Cause this is what he proclaims in all of his campaigns. Within seconds of laying out the populist-sounding "corporatism" red herring in the video above, he then starts talking about the miracle of unregulated free markets. The guy is a joke.
I disagree. AFAIC, he is one of the few people in Congress who actually side with the people over corporations. I believe him and I believe a large portion of what he espouses. He would bring home the troops, would gut the military industrial complex (the biggest money drain in our country and one to which both parties are beholden), would reduce the deficit and make strides on the debt, and would axe a number of programs that desperately need to be put out of our misery. Some of the things that he would do would be painful, but would get us back on the right track.
He's right on reducing our military footprint, yes, but incredibly naive about the results and ramifications. That's a side issue, however. Please explain to me how promoting an unregulated free market, in any way, would act to curb the ills of the "corporatism" he describes. That is completely contradictory. Paul believes in, or at least he publicly espouses, removing laws and regulations that act as checks against private corporations. He believes in the magic of the free market, that if we don't police the (white collar) criminals they will all the sudden begin to act in society's best interest. This ignores the history of the human condition. A Ron Paul presidency would revert the United States to the days of the robber barons; it would encourage the development of hyper-robber barons. Greed, Oliver Stone's masterfully satiric speeches aside, is not good. An unchecked corporation will act to maximize its own profits, at the expense of the consumer and the society at large. This is not a difficult proposition, no matter how many times Paul disingenuously talks about "corporatism."
I believe Ron Paul is genuinely sincere in his beliefs, and in expressing those beliefs. I also believe he's wrong.
you might be right, but as long as the economy is deregulated immoral **** is going down. $$$$$$$$$$$$$=BBBBBAAAAAAADDDDDDD
The thing is, Paul would not have the ability to put into place all of the things he would want. He can't completely disband the EPA, SEC, OSHA, or the other regulatory agencies because those were created by Congress. There are plenty of things he COULD do as president that IMO NEED to be done and he is the only one who would actually do them.
Ron Paul was my candidate in 2008. He is the most sincere, graceful, and well meaning politician I have ever seen. I loved him because all of his arguments are based on logic, they all make sense. Everything he wanted to do was freaking great....IN A PERFECT WORLD. A world where greed and desire for power aren't the main motives of human beings. But in this messed up world we live in, You can't just deregulate everything and expect the companies to "compete" against each other for the benefit of the public. It's like if you had a choice between making 1000 dollars in legitimate ways and a million dollars by hurting someone else that you'll never ever see again, which one would you choose? well, that's the choice insurance companies have, and unfortunately they make the choice to drop people who need them the most so they don't have to pay the $$$. It's disgusting, but this is life. I wish Ron Paul could recognize that, but his lack of understanding on how our world works doesn't decrease my love and admiration of this great man.
I still can't believe the free ride that Ron gets: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca&k=15257 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740 http://wonkette.com/343959/libertarians-would-like-ron-paul-to-go-back-to-being-a-republican http://www.poligazette.com/2008/01/08/ron-paul-racist/ Anyone over the age of forty remembers Ron's guys handing out his pamphlets at the airport right alongside Lyndon Larouche's folks and the Hare Krishnas. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html#cnnSTCOther1
So, you want to vote for a guy despite the realization that his ideas are bat---- insane, and would require a strong congress to counterbalance him with all its might, otherwise his crazy ideas would be implemented? That makes very little sense. About his use of the nonsensical "corporatism": I can run for local sheriff, and spout off about the need to be "tough on crime." But if I actually propose pulling all the police off the streets, letting the criminals run free, as a cost-saving/fiscal discipline measure, all the while telling my constituency that this would in fact drive crime downwards, no one would vote for me. They would correctly see me as an idiot. We saw in the last administration what happens when the president appoints political apparatchiks to oversee regulatory agencies. The SEC and Justice Department slumber. The head of the civil rights division predominantly seeks out cases of whites as victims. At least Bush believed in keeping up appearances. Now, multiply that by 1000, in a Ron Paul presidency. If he does not believe in the regulatory agency (and given his rhetoric, he does not), and cannot arbitrarily end them, he will merely nominate candidate after candidate to lead them who will do nothing if approved. If not approved, then those divisions will be rudderless, and similarly nothing will be accomplished. This is classic stonewalling. Death by a thousand (Ron Paul) pamphlet cuts. Nicely written. Ex-Paul supporters mirror former Naderites ("Both parties are the same. Vote for me...") in a lot of ways.
No, RP would be able to reduce government in a number of meaningful ways that would not cripple our country or its citizens. He would be able to pull troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan (and would with all due haste), pull troops from other foreign assignments, begin the process of closing down foreign bases, do away with prohibition and the infrastructure needed to support it, and a number of other things. Please listen to what RP says, not what you seem to believe about the libertarian views. RP wants for the middle class to have the power in this country, not the corporations. I believe that the things he would do (or choose not to do) would be driven by this central belief that the people, not the corporations, are the ones who need the government's protection. I got to talk with him on these subjects while I worked at Galveston College, the guy doesn't want to do away with everything that protects us (EPA, OSHA, etc.), he wants to do away with the things that only exist to protect the corporations' interests. RP's mantra would be "no unnecessary spending." He wouldn't disband or neuter the SEC, he knows that the corporations need oversight, he is aware that people break the law and that we need the Justice Department to take care of many of those cases. I completely disagree because I have spoken with him about these issues and listened to what he has to say rather than what others have to say about him. Your analysis is night and day different from what I have gleaned about his intentions and desires for the federal government.
Yes, it is absolutely my mistake to believe the rhetoric that comes out of his mouth and the policy proposals written on his campaign websites. Mea culpa.
Why don't you email him your criticisms and give him time to respond (it will take a while) and then post the content here in D&D. Call it a dare, he has answered every email I have ever sent him personally. Last time I talked to him was back in May, I am so glad he didn't have a chance to get elected, he is too decent and honest a man for this government. And this government is spot on a corporatist state, private corporations even control the money supply and all debt (banks are private corporations)
He couldn't disband them, but he could makethem impotent by appointing garbage administrators to them. Realistically, he could proably accomplish the bad things he would want to accomplish, but would be unable to accomplish any of the good things. He doesn't have the ability to gut the military-industrial complex or reduce the deficit, for example. Those things come from Congress.
So now, you and rhester suggest, I have to have a personal, one-on-one heart-to-heart conversation with the man in order to gauge his true intent? I can't trust the words coming out of his mouth, or the policy proposals he offered in the campaign(s)? What about this press release headline? "It’s Time To Abolish The Fed And The SEC." Where did I get that? Some obscure, liberal blog taking Paul out of context? Oh, no, it's from Ron Paul's own mouth, from a website of his supporters/stenographers, that's where. RonPaul.com: "It’s Time To Abolish The Fed And The SEC." And here's the accompanying video to prove it. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xir5j8SjVlI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xir5j8SjVlI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> [rquoter]..."We need to think about eliminating this whole regulatory process. And actually, we don’t need the SEC at all, and we could thrive even better and we would dwell on self-reliance, self-policing and the idea that people can’t commit fraud, but the government should not commit fraud either. We should not set an example."[/rquoter] Ron Paul's argument: Bush's SEC wasn't vigilant enough to stop Madoff. (That much is true.) His solution: rather than increase funding and strengthen the power of the SEC to catch crooks (as it has done many, many times in the past), let's simply abolish it instead, and let the crooks run free. Wha'? Again, the analogy: The police don't stop all crimes. Therefore, instead of strengthening the police we should abolish all police. Ron Paul is not a friend of the middle class; he would leave them to the wolves, to suit his hare-brained ideology. Ron Paul wants to remove all current protections for the consumer against the "corporatism" he recognizes as evil, and for the sake of what? Ideological consistency? I can't trust the man at his own word? He's really a great guy in private, via email or Galveston CC lecture? He really gets it, but just has to deceive everyone else with his public speech; yet, all the time he'd do the right thing if he got elected to our highest office? Please.
Aghast, first of all he isn't stupid and he isn't hare-brained. With a little effort if you wanted to raise good points to him he would welcome your criticism and make a good faith effort to dialogue with you. I've never fully agreed with RP but I never met a more principled and honest man in politics. I like Ron Paul alot, but don't worry about his ideas. They are dead forever in America and they will remain that way. He is fighting for the right things but he is way too late. Nothing is more powerful than the groups behind the Fed.
Ron Paul is the only politicians who is not driven but personal wealth, greed and power... he speaks his mind and means what he says.. he gets straight to the point and uses logic in his debate.. its refreshing for a politician. i only wish we had more leaders like him... Go Ron Paul!!
