Ok here's where I think we are differing. I agree with the EFFECTS Paul wants, but there's this fundamental belief in the good of humanity that I think is just too idealistic. I agree that our foreign policy (wars, trade, etc) is DESTROYING us, and we are wasting a ton of money and lives.
But he starts to lose me on shit like this:
(
http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Health_Care.htm)
Q: You say you'd leave regulation to the market. Would you then put it on the drug companies to say, "No, we're bringing this to market, trust us, it's a fantastic drug"?
A: Theoretically, it could be privatized, but who ends up doing the regulations on the drugs?
(EVADES THE QUESTION) They do as much harm as good.
(Not true. Ask anyone who uses pres. drugs for any serious condition) They don't take good care of us. Who gets--who gets to write the regulations? The bureaucrats write the regulations, but who writes the laws? The lobbyists have control, so lobbyists from the drug industry has control of writing the regulations, so you turn it over to the bureaucracy. But you would have private institutions that could become credible.
(Businesses that tell the truth. I won't hold my breath.) And, I mean, do we need the federal government to tell us whether we buy a safe car? I say the consumers of America are smart enough to decide what kind of car they can buy and whether it's safe or not, and they don't need the federal government hounding them and putting so much regulations on that our car industry has gone overseas.
(Regulations like safety? Industry is overseas because of tax loopholes and cheap labor)
See this is the nutty shit I was referring to. Again, I LIKE Paul for a lot of reasons, but this makes me so nervous.
First of all, THEORETICALLY I didn't hear an answer in there - just like in the debate. We are talking about people's LIVES, not a concept like economic principles.
Second - "Americans are smart enough to decide what kind of car they can buy and whether it's safe or not."
UMMMM NO.
I sure as fuck don't want to be the one to decide if a car I'm looking to buy is "safe or not." I mean, the car thing is a metaphor, but look at the whole seatbelt issue in the first half of the century People were flying out of cars left and right until Ralph Nader stepped in.
Pharmaceuticals - sure, lots of problems. You have restless leg syndrome? Take this, but it will make you shit your kidneys out of your mouth. All kinds of class action suits for bad pills.
But I don't want to leave regulation up to a private company that would likely be more of a fraud than what the FDA is now. FDA is corrupt, but at least there's SOME sense of ethics there. If Pfizer gets to decide if a drug is safe we are gonna have Google-Monsanto-GE-Halliburton-One World making us take all kinds of wild shit, or get thrown in Guantanamo (joking...sort of).
I also don't see how tax breaks are gonna prevent people from squandering all their money on dumb shit and then being 70 and homeless. Should people save their money? Yes. Will they? No. This is the fundamental issue - humans are noble, but they are also greedy and stupid. If everyone used their brain, we wouldn't even be at this point.
It's interesting to hear how you, as an Australian, see clearly that Obama is a snake. I agree. But there's this blindness to it because he's cool, smart, and the first black president which is a huge milestone. I mean people were really flipping out when he got elected, and you didn't see that.
I think all that hype is blinding people to, for example his Goldman Sachs and big Pharma ties. For a foreigner, it's clear as day. I'll admit, I personally think Obama's a cool guy lol...just like W. Everyone here was saying "Well I'm voting for Bush because he's the kind a guy I could sit down and have a beer with." That's about the average level of American political thought - too busy lining up at Walmart for Black Friday.
Quote: (01-13-2012 03:03 AM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:
This is an example of how the media misrepresents him though
On cutting social security:
Quote:Paul Wrote:
Yes, but not overnight. As a matter of fact, my program’s the only one that is going to be able to take care of the elderly. I’d like to get the young people out of it, just the younger generation, because there’s no money there, and they’re going to have to pay 50 years and they’re not going to get anything. I’d take care of all the elderly, all those who are dependent, but I would save the money from this wild spending overseas.
He wants to cut back on the war chest to pay for social security. The anti social security guy will spend more on it because he knows it cant be cut yet. But younger generations can be weaned off it.
And more, from Wiki
Quote:Quote:
Paul has given 12 updates on his Texas Straight Talk archive on the issue of Social Security.[70] Paul says that Social Security is in "bad shape ... The numbers aren't there"; funds are depleting because Congress borrows from the Social Security fund every year to fund its budget.[71] He considers himself the rare member of Congress who has voted for such little spending that it has never required borrowing from existing Social Security funds. To stem the Social Security crisis and meet the commitment to elderly citizens who depend on it, he requires that Congress cut down on spending, reassess monetary and spending policies, and stop borrowing heavily from foreign investors, such as those in China, who hold U.S. Treasury bonds. Paul believes young Americans should be able to opt out of the system if they would not like to pay Social Security taxes, in order to protect the system
It makes me sick that the media has the influence it does. Paul is regarded as being fringe when his views are perfectly reasonable. He does not believe in social security, but knows he cant cut it straight away. So wants to pass policy that will do it gradually.
Have you seen the basics of the healthcare policy?
Note how he wants to drop taxes and offer rebates. You think the local pharma companies are happy about him wanting to allow the importation of cheaper drugs? Lol, they want the regulation to protect their monopolies. Its the same as this bullshit where I believe you guys cant buy healthcare policies from different states? Lol, this is regulation to protect business.
I would trust a doctors healthcare policies before I did a politicians who donations are coming from phara lobbyists. Here is a another more recent report. See why his healthcare plan is so dangerous?
Nothing more than media spin because they are scared of him. Its like this crap where they say Paul could not beat Obama. The vast majority of his votes are independents and democrat swing votes, along with younger people. This is Obamas demographic. Imagine when he gets up and starts talking about auditing the fed, ending the war and legalising drugs? Lol, half of Obamas liberal base is gone! He makes Obama look like a neo-con.
Romney? He is Obama, who has just as much support from the media as he does the big banks and lobbyists.
Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate who is not corrupt.
