What do you think of Ron Paul's Plan?

bluej wrote:

Snowdoggie wrote: Where is Ron Paul in the latest polls? It still seems like the majority in this country is not buying what he is selling.

him, Cain, Perry, and Romney tend to bounce around the top depending on the structure/location of the poll. despite consistently holding 3rd and polling in the double digits nationally, he has received the least time at debates of all candidates and is quite obviously being ignored as hard as possible by all major media outlets.

I admit that the press ignores Ron Paul, but most of the polls I have seen have either Cain or Romney up front after Rick Perry's meltdown and Paul has yet to pass the second tier.

Yea lets not forget that when the consitution was written when most of North America was uncharted territory, primarily uninhabited except for some folks who had been living fairly successfully on communism.

In case you haven't noticed, there are a few (billion) more people now, and the vast majority of them give to charity just as much they benefit from it. Lots of poor people makes lots of cheap labor, and cheap labor is the driver of wealth. The wealth in this country (or this world) will never give the masses an even playing field, its not good for business. Luckily my government tries its best to give me a chance to succeed.

I like my basic social services, and I wouldn't mind a few more (socialized medicine)

PHeller wrote: I like my basic social services, and I wouldn't mind a few more (socialized medicine)

Right, and I don't want 50% of them and really hate paying for them. So let's decide which ones we want to look at, vote on them and make amendments. Whichever amendments get passed get funded as written. Open, honest and transparent. Also, it requires more than a simply majority, so we wouldn't flip flop like a fish out of water as the house changed hands.

Javelin wrote: He's saying he can cut $1,000,000,000,000 by axing all of the Departments not covered by the Constitution and other changes. It actually seems like a really good plan.

So, we only have the Congress, Executive Office, Supreme Court, and the Navy?

Salanis wrote:

Javelin wrote: He's saying he can cut $1,000,000,000,000 by axing all of the Departments not covered by the Constitution and other changes. It actually seems like a really good plan.

So, we only have the Congress, Executive Office, Supreme Court, and the Navy?

Did you read the Plan? It cuts the crap that no Amendment has ever touched, such as HUD. It also slashes the crap out of Congress and Presidential incomes and spending, and rightfully so.

tuna55 wrote:

alfadriver wrote: LOL- everyone brings that idea up, and we seem to think that our consitution can not be changed because the founding fathers didn't intend it to be that way. They also didn't intend to not have slavery, or allow women to vote, or a whole lot of things that are now Amendments to the Consitution.

Wondering why I have you "LOL"ing, but dude, if you want to constitution to say something other than what it says, it can be changed as such. The founding fathers, the people who wrote it, decided what that phrase meant. If you wish it to mean something else, amend it and say it. That way we can have an honest debate as to the merits of that plan. Just assuming that you can change the verbiage to suit you? That's slimy and underhanded.

You tell me that "the founding fathers did or did not intend it to mean X"- in this case General Welfare.

They also did and did not intend a LOT of things that have happened in the last 100 years. So bringing up "the founding fathers didn't mean that" is a pointless argument.

We just used "Common Defence" to invade another country under the false impression that they were a threat to us, so don't tell me that the words in the Constitution are not interpreted in different ways.

BTW, Social Security has been on the books for close to 80 years now. Has been Constitutionally attacked quite a few times, and still is there. Even with pretty biased Supreme Courts.

So either the lawers for the opposition are complete crap (which I could belive , but that's a long time for Harvard Law to be so bad), or it's legal.

Some of those spending cuts I agree with. Some less so.

I admire Paul. He says what he means. This is an example of Paul saying "this is how I think it should be".

I think Paul is a terible candidate for President because of proposals like this. I understand his position because he is very clear. But let's say he won and somehow made that happen. In effect, he is saying "I know other people have won elections before me and every law passed and every department created was done so by the approval and desire of voters, but I'm going to toss all that out and act as if the only opinion that matters in a democracy is the one that won the last election." It's the problem we have right now all wrapped up with a bow. We need each side to say "I know I won my seat in an election, but I know those on the other side of the isle did as well. Now we all have to work together to find answers that satisfy both to the extent we can."

Paul wears his lack of willingness to compromise as a badge of honor. I dissagree with that.

If we end social services, should we end all tax cuts as well?

MitchellC wrote: If we end social services, should we end all tax cuts as well?

yes

But you have to get your head around the fact that a large segment of the population believe that the government should use the tax code not to actually fund the operations of the government,

but as a social control tool.

Or a corporate kick-back.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Or a corporate kick-back.

Both of you are correct, both need to be eliminated.

I propose we start cutting with the TSA. Open up the airports and let all passengers know that if any terrorist is aboard it's up to them to eradicate them. Keep the armored door between the cockpit and the passenger compartment. Voila! Effective air security without the anal probes.

Xceler8x wrote: I propose we start cutting with the TSA. Open up the airports and let all passengers know that if any terrorist is aboard it's up to them to eradicate them. Keep the armored door between the cockpit and the passenger compartment. Voila! Effective air security without the anal probes.

Or we could just issue every passenger a tazer...

Got my chuckle for the day.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Or a corporate kick-back.

i disagree that a large segment of the population thinks this is appropriate in proportion to the people who think the tax code should be used to socially engineer.

but I don't disagree it needs to stop.

Javelin wrote: Why does Ron Paul not get air time?

He's not loud enough.

No, I'm serious. He doesn't set his hair on fire and call everyone else Hitler every time he speaks, so no one pays attention, because, as we know, yelling is the basis of politics and compromise

If he makes it to the general, I'm voting for him, if only because I hate the two-party system, and most of his platform is common sense (minus the gold standard and the laissez-faire economics thing). As some homemade signs around here say: Two parties, zero choices.

Snowdoggie wrote: Where is Ron Paul in the latest polls? It still seems like the majority in this country is not buying what he is selling.

If most in this country aren't buying what he's saying it's because mainstream media outlets aren't covering him. He is usually found around 3rd or 4th in the polls and thats with no real media coverage and really just grassroots support. Imagine if they spent as much time talking about Paul as they do Romney. The reality is most media outlets are owned by larger corporations that lose their influence if Paul becomes president.

I'm voting for Ron Paul in the primary and hopefully in the presidential election.

Being third or fourth in the polls could look like this though:

Candidate one: 60% of the votes Candidate two: 30% of the votes Candidate three: 5% of the votes Candidate four: 4% of the votes

You get the idea.

Also, polling is hideously biased, depending on how the poll is conducted. For example:

Do you think that Congress should budget to treat veterans if they are injured in combat: Yes or no? vs. Do you think that military spending needs to be cut? Yes or no?

Brett_Murphy wrote: Being third or fourth in the polls could look like this though: Candidate one: 60% of the votes Candidate two: 30% of the votes Candidate three: 5% of the votes Candidate four: 4% of the votes You get the idea. Also, polling is hideously biased, depending on how the poll is conducted. For example: Do you think that Congress should budget to treat veterans if they are injured in combat: Yes or no? vs. Do you think that military spending needs to be cut? Yes or no?

I'm just referring to the polls cone after the debates asking people which person they feel won the debate.

PHeller wrote: Sweet, so the most developed nation in the world would have the social services on par with Democratic Republic of Congo.

Yet, shockingly, you could take all my money, cars, house, things, cut my berkeleying legs off, then take away all 'social services' and I can guaran-goddamned-tee you I wouldn't starve or freeze to death. I guess that means I "won life's lottery."

SNL pretty much summed up the coverage Ron Paul gets in their Republican debate skit from last week..

"Ron Paul, ideologically pure and tough as nails"- right after two masked armed gunmen grabbed him and threw him into a white van in the parking garage he was standing in during the debate- after the door slides shut, we hear a few gunshots.. the door slides open, Ron Paul gets out and straightens up his suit, and an arm from one of the attackers falls out of the van door..

Damn, even this thread about Ron Paul is being ignored. Guy just can't win .

dankspeed wrote: Damn, even this thread about Ron Paul is being ignored. Guy just can't win .

I was thinking the same thing.