[Sandi Egan]

esmith,

Your previous post made me think, and after posting my answer, I spent a couple of days researching the subject. Someone on this thread accused me of being a white rich straight male, (which I have to admit I am), and as such am looking at the issues differently. I accept that my views on some social issues might be biased by my personal situation, and I might not give some issues the importance I would, if my life and well-being depended on them.

Perhaps, I am no good at describing his positions on all issues. This video might shed light on some of them.

http://www.ronpaulnation.com/tv.html#nashua_telegraph

I tried to investigate the Dr. Paul’s stance on social security, medicare, and other related issues, which I admittedly didn’t pay enough attention to. Here’s what I found out:

As you can see in the video, there are two critical positions, that define Dr. Paul’s stance: non-interventionalist foreign policy and protection of personal liberty. Everything else is kind of following from these two. He is not going to disband SSA and Medicare when he gets to the White House. He will try resolve the financial issues that the US is facing, mainly by cutting the foreign military involvement, and then slowly steer the country to a less-bureaucratic route. He promises that everybody who needs help will receive it. That approach will allow to actually fund social programs by better distributing the funding, instead of just raising taxes.

Ron Paul of course has personal position regarding all topics, which may or may not correlate with mine or yours. His approach, however, is that it is not the place of executive branch of the government to force their beliefs on people. Regardless of his personal beliefs, the president should not aspire to replace the law with his own vision. The laws are the Constitution and the will of people expressed through their representatives in Congress. The executive branch is charged with optimal implementation of the laws.

I don’t agree with Ron Paul on some issues. Personally I would benefit from increased funding for science. It hurts my feelings, that he is opposes participating in Darfur crysis resolution and is against branding massacre of Armenians by Turkey in 1915 a genocide. But I understand that his position is not dictated by populist reasons. He claims that the US should not meddle in internal affairs of other nations, which I support, and I fully understand that his principles will not allow him to make exceptions and apply double standards.

I disagree with you that Dr. Paul is trying to sidestep hard questions by saying the States will deal with them. On the contrary, he openly describes how he feels about them, and by doing so repels some of his potential supporters. But the point is, he does not think he as a president will have a right to push his opinion on the country. For example, as an obstetrician he feels very strongly about abortions. He said many times, that in his personal view any abortion is a murder. But he will be opposed to a federal abortion ban, simply because it is not the place of federal government to dictate that. Like with other questionable issues, States decide what constitutes a crime and what should be the punishment. For this reason anti-abortion groups, that fight for a constitutional amendment to ban abortions wouldn’t endorse Ron Paul.

And that brings us to the main and overwhelmingly crucial argument, that defines Ron Paul for me. It looks like an obvious move for a candidate: proclame support for something he personally truly believes in and gain the endorsement of an influential political fraction. But he wouldn’t do that, because he puts the Law and Constitution above his personal beliefs, even if it might cost him a dearly. I challenge anybody to name another candidate that would dare to do so.

What I am trying to say is, Ron Paul is not an ordinary presidential candidate. The society grew convinced that there is no such thing as an honest politician. We don’t follow the politics, don’t vote. And even when we do, we vote for someone who promises something that would benefit us personally, as opposed to what is good for the country.

Ron Paul is a once-in-a-century opportunity for this country. Opportunity that came exactly when we needed it the most. Let’s not blow our chance.

[Sandi Egan]

A must read for everyone:
http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2007/11/20/85535/649

[Sandi Egan]

A must read for everyone:
http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2007/11/20/85535/649

[Sandi Egan]

A must read for everyone:
http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2007/11/20/85535/649

[Sandi Egan]

A must read for everyone:
http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2007/11/20/85535/649

[Sandi Egan]

A must read for everyone:
http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2007/11/20/85535/649

[Sandi Egan]

My guess is that 80% or so of Ron Paul supporters will vote republican in the end.

I always supported democrats, but after learning about Paul’s platform I realized how close it is to what I believe in. The rest of Republican field is just scary to me. If Dr. Paul does not get the Republican nomination, his followers will most likely persuade him to run as independent. I don’t particularly like that outcome, since progressive voters will be split between Dems and Paul, while neocons will vote Republican.

I think all liberals here will agree, that Ron Paul is at the very least the best choice among Republicans. So, I urge everyone, especially independents, to register and vote in Republican primaries for Ron Paul.

[Sandi Egan]

My guess is that 80% or so of Ron Paul supporters will vote republican in the end.

I always supported democrats, but after learning about Paul’s platform I realized how close it is to what I believe in. The rest of Republican field is just scary to me. If Dr. Paul does not get the Republican nomination, his followers will most likely persuade him to run as independent. I don’t particularly like that outcome, since progressive voters will be split between Dems and Paul, while neocons will vote Republican.

I think all liberals here will agree, that Ron Paul is at the very least the best choice among Republicans. So, I urge everyone, especially independents, to register and vote in Republican primaries for Ron Paul.

[Sandi Egan]

My guess is that 80% or so of Ron Paul supporters will vote republican in the end.

I always supported democrats, but after learning about Paul’s platform I realized how close it is to what I believe in. The rest of Republican field is just scary to me. If Dr. Paul does not get the Republican nomination, his followers will most likely persuade him to run as independent. I don’t particularly like that outcome, since progressive voters will be split between Dems and Paul, while neocons will vote Republican.

I think all liberals here will agree, that Ron Paul is at the very least the best choice among Republicans. So, I urge everyone, especially independents, to register and vote in Republican primaries for Ron Paul.

[Sandi Egan]

My guess is that 80% or so of Ron Paul supporters will vote republican in the end.

I always supported democrats, but after learning about Paul’s platform I realized how close it is to what I believe in. The rest of Republican field is just scary to me. If Dr. Paul does not get the Republican nomination, his followers will most likely persuade him to run as independent. I don’t particularly like that outcome, since progressive voters will be split between Dems and Paul, while neocons will vote Republican.

I think all liberals here will agree, that Ron Paul is at the very least the best choice among Republicans. So, I urge everyone, especially independents, to register and vote in Republican primaries for Ron Paul.

[Sandi Egan]

My guess is that 80% or so of Ron Paul supporters will vote republican in the end.

I always supported democrats, but after learning about Paul’s platform I realized how close it is to what I believe in. The rest of Republican field is just scary to me. If Dr. Paul does not get the Republican nomination, his followers will most likely persuade him to run as independent. I don’t particularly like that outcome, since progressive voters will be split between Dems and Paul, while neocons will vote Republican.

I think all liberals here will agree, that Ron Paul is at the very least the best choice among Republicans. So, I urge everyone, especially independents, to register and vote in Republican primaries for Ron Paul.

[Sandi Egan]

OK, esmith, you made me stay up until 5AM to answer your post 🙂

Disclamer: I am not claiming to know all the answers, and my thoughts below are just that – my thoughts. They are based of my limited understanding of how things work and what Dr. Paul’s position is. I might be completely wrong.

The main premise of Ron Paul’s position on federal spending (as I understand it) is, using FEDERAL money and FEDERAL solutions is always less effective and more abuse-prone, than using State local programs to achieve the same goal. Using private money is more effective yet.

We’ll scale down our defense spending. There’s still a big hole? No problem, we’ll just cut some unnecessary programs. Here’s an idea: why don’t we shut down NASA.
I work in a science-related field myself, and it’s my opinion, that government-funded science is by far less productive than privately funded labs. It is OK to waste enormous amounts of money in hope to produce SOMETHING at the end, but I don’t think a country on a verge of bankruptcy can afford that. And who said NASA is the only right way for space exploration? It is as a wasteful and irresponsible way of spending our taxes as they come.

Cut social programs such as unemployment benefits and Medicare. You want to eat? Go find a job you lazy bum. You want to go to a doctor, but you can’t afford health insurance? Tough luck. You’re 75 and you have no savings (or, rather, not enough to pay $1000/month for health insurance in the absence of Medicare)? Tough luck.
For better or worse, changes in social programs can’t come overnight. People who are 75 now will still get all their benefits.
If you are 45 today, and you have a good income, but you spend it all in hopes that I will pay for your retirement – well, think again. With the income tax abolished, you will be able save by far more money than you ever could. If you decide not to, how come it is the responsibility of my son, who is 2 now, to pay your medical bills in 30 years?
Of course, in some cases the society is responsible to protect its weakest, but the federal programs that handle it right now are not the best way of dealing with the problem. Imho.

Start raising rates. What deflationary spiral? What 25% unemployment? We’ll just repeal minimum wage laws to bring manufacturing jobs back to America. If you can’t afford to own a car and a house on a $100/month manufacturing salary – you’ll have to live in a factory dorm and walk to work.
This is outside my area of expertise, and my views can be overly simplistic. But my understanding is, Ron Paul does not want the government to dictate the rates. Free market tends to self-correct. If the reasonable cost for the job is $100/month, artificially raising it to $200 will not make the company pay $200. It will make the company pay $100 to somebody who will take it, namely move it overseas. The company does not really have a choice here, other than going out of business. So, the small companies that cannot afford to build plants in China will be driven to bankruptcy, while the big corporations will outsource. How exactly is that helping the worker, who cannot earn even that $100 now? I know how – by paying his unemployment benefits from my taxes. No, thanks.

Anyway, it is nice to have a constructive discussion here, without name-calling and emotional statements. It’ll be great to hear everyones thoughts on the topic.

Happy Thanksgivig, everyone.

[Sandi Egan]

OK, esmith, you made me stay up until 5AM to answer your post 🙂

Disclamer: I am not claiming to know all the answers, and my thoughts below are just that – my thoughts. They are based of my limited understanding of how things work and what Dr. Paul’s position is. I might be completely wrong.

The main premise of Ron Paul’s position on federal spending (as I understand it) is, using FEDERAL money and FEDERAL solutions is always less effective and more abuse-prone, than using State local programs to achieve the same goal. Using private money is more effective yet.

We’ll scale down our defense spending. There’s still a big hole? No problem, we’ll just cut some unnecessary programs. Here’s an idea: why don’t we shut down NASA.
I work in a science-related field myself, and it’s my opinion, that government-funded science is by far less productive than privately funded labs. It is OK to waste enormous amounts of money in hope to produce SOMETHING at the end, but I don’t think a country on a verge of bankruptcy can afford that. And who said NASA is the only right way for space exploration? It is as a wasteful and irresponsible way of spending our taxes as they come.

Cut social programs such as unemployment benefits and Medicare. You want to eat? Go find a job you lazy bum. You want to go to a doctor, but you can’t afford health insurance? Tough luck. You’re 75 and you have no savings (or, rather, not enough to pay $1000/month for health insurance in the absence of Medicare)? Tough luck.
For better or worse, changes in social programs can’t come overnight. People who are 75 now will still get all their benefits.
If you are 45 today, and you have a good income, but you spend it all in hopes that I will pay for your retirement – well, think again. With the income tax abolished, you will be able save by far more money than you ever could. If you decide not to, how come it is the responsibility of my son, who is 2 now, to pay your medical bills in 30 years?
Of course, in some cases the society is responsible to protect its weakest, but the federal programs that handle it right now are not the best way of dealing with the problem. Imho.

Start raising rates. What deflationary spiral? What 25% unemployment? We’ll just repeal minimum wage laws to bring manufacturing jobs back to America. If you can’t afford to own a car and a house on a $100/month manufacturing salary – you’ll have to live in a factory dorm and walk to work.
This is outside my area of expertise, and my views can be overly simplistic. But my understanding is, Ron Paul does not want the government to dictate the rates. Free market tends to self-correct. If the reasonable cost for the job is $100/month, artificially raising it to $200 will not make the company pay $200. It will make the company pay $100 to somebody who will take it, namely move it overseas. The company does not really have a choice here, other than going out of business. So, the small companies that cannot afford to build plants in China will be driven to bankruptcy, while the big corporations will outsource. How exactly is that helping the worker, who cannot earn even that $100 now? I know how – by paying his unemployment benefits from my taxes. No, thanks.

Anyway, it is nice to have a constructive discussion here, without name-calling and emotional statements. It’ll be great to hear everyones thoughts on the topic.

Happy Thanksgivig, everyone.

[Sandi Egan]

OK, esmith, you made me stay up until 5AM to answer your post 🙂

Disclamer: I am not claiming to know all the answers, and my thoughts below are just that – my thoughts. They are based of my limited understanding of how things work and what Dr. Paul’s position is. I might be completely wrong.

The main premise of Ron Paul’s position on federal spending (as I understand it) is, using FEDERAL money and FEDERAL solutions is always less effective and more abuse-prone, than using State local programs to achieve the same goal. Using private money is more effective yet.

We’ll scale down our defense spending. There’s still a big hole? No problem, we’ll just cut some unnecessary programs. Here’s an idea: why don’t we shut down NASA.
I work in a science-related field myself, and it’s my opinion, that government-funded science is by far less productive than privately funded labs. It is OK to waste enormous amounts of money in hope to produce SOMETHING at the end, but I don’t think a country on a verge of bankruptcy can afford that. And who said NASA is the only right way for space exploration? It is as a wasteful and irresponsible way of spending our taxes as they come.

Cut social programs such as unemployment benefits and Medicare. You want to eat? Go find a job you lazy bum. You want to go to a doctor, but you can’t afford health insurance? Tough luck. You’re 75 and you have no savings (or, rather, not enough to pay $1000/month for health insurance in the absence of Medicare)? Tough luck.
For better or worse, changes in social programs can’t come overnight. People who are 75 now will still get all their benefits.
If you are 45 today, and you have a good income, but you spend it all in hopes that I will pay for your retirement – well, think again. With the income tax abolished, you will be able save by far more money than you ever could. If you decide not to, how come it is the responsibility of my son, who is 2 now, to pay your medical bills in 30 years?
Of course, in some cases the society is responsible to protect its weakest, but the federal programs that handle it right now are not the best way of dealing with the problem. Imho.

Start raising rates. What deflationary spiral? What 25% unemployment? We’ll just repeal minimum wage laws to bring manufacturing jobs back to America. If you can’t afford to own a car and a house on a $100/month manufacturing salary – you’ll have to live in a factory dorm and walk to work.
This is outside my area of expertise, and my views can be overly simplistic. But my understanding is, Ron Paul does not want the government to dictate the rates. Free market tends to self-correct. If the reasonable cost for the job is $100/month, artificially raising it to $200 will not make the company pay $200. It will make the company pay $100 to somebody who will take it, namely move it overseas. The company does not really have a choice here, other than going out of business. So, the small companies that cannot afford to build plants in China will be driven to bankruptcy, while the big corporations will outsource. How exactly is that helping the worker, who cannot earn even that $100 now? I know how – by paying his unemployment benefits from my taxes. No, thanks.

Anyway, it is nice to have a constructive discussion here, without name-calling and emotional statements. It’ll be great to hear everyones thoughts on the topic.

Happy Thanksgivig, everyone.

[Sandi Egan]

OK, esmith, you made me stay up until 5AM to answer your post 🙂

Disclamer: I am not claiming to know all the answers, and my thoughts below are just that – my thoughts. They are based of my limited understanding of how things work and what Dr. Paul’s position is. I might be completely wrong.

The main premise of Ron Paul’s position on federal spending (as I understand it) is, using FEDERAL money and FEDERAL solutions is always less effective and more abuse-prone, than using State local programs to achieve the same goal. Using private money is more effective yet.

We’ll scale down our defense spending. There’s still a big hole? No problem, we’ll just cut some unnecessary programs. Here’s an idea: why don’t we shut down NASA.
I work in a science-related field myself, and it’s my opinion, that government-funded science is by far less productive than privately funded labs. It is OK to waste enormous amounts of money in hope to produce SOMETHING at the end, but I don’t think a country on a verge of bankruptcy can afford that. And who said NASA is the only right way for space exploration? It is as a wasteful and irresponsible way of spending our taxes as they come.

Cut social programs such as unemployment benefits and Medicare. You want to eat? Go find a job you lazy bum. You want to go to a doctor, but you can’t afford health insurance? Tough luck. You’re 75 and you have no savings (or, rather, not enough to pay $1000/month for health insurance in the absence of Medicare)? Tough luck.
For better or worse, changes in social programs can’t come overnight. People who are 75 now will still get all their benefits.
If you are 45 today, and you have a good income, but you spend it all in hopes that I will pay for your retirement – well, think again. With the income tax abolished, you will be able save by far more money than you ever could. If you decide not to, how come it is the responsibility of my son, who is 2 now, to pay your medical bills in 30 years?
Of course, in some cases the society is responsible to protect its weakest, but the federal programs that handle it right now are not the best way of dealing with the problem. Imho.

Start raising rates. What deflationary spiral? What 25% unemployment? We’ll just repeal minimum wage laws to bring manufacturing jobs back to America. If you can’t afford to own a car and a house on a $100/month manufacturing salary – you’ll have to live in a factory dorm and walk to work.
This is outside my area of expertise, and my views can be overly simplistic. But my understanding is, Ron Paul does not want the government to dictate the rates. Free market tends to self-correct. If the reasonable cost for the job is $100/month, artificially raising it to $200 will not make the company pay $200. It will make the company pay $100 to somebody who will take it, namely move it overseas. The company does not really have a choice here, other than going out of business. So, the small companies that cannot afford to build plants in China will be driven to bankruptcy, while the big corporations will outsource. How exactly is that helping the worker, who cannot earn even that $100 now? I know how – by paying his unemployment benefits from my taxes. No, thanks.

Anyway, it is nice to have a constructive discussion here, without name-calling and emotional statements. It’ll be great to hear everyones thoughts on the topic.

Happy Thanksgivig, everyone.

[Author]

Posts