Texas Liberal

All People Matter

Ron Paul—Brutal In His Views For A Long Time

Houston area Congressman Ron Paul , the author of the book pictured above, has been in the news of late for various things.

Congressman Paul is running for President, he is a raising a lot of money from his brutal economic Darwinist libertarian supporters, he is a champion of pork barrel politics and ( to his credit) he wants out of Iraq.   

Congressman Paul has been practicing his brand of politics for a long time.

He first ran for the U.S. House in 1974. (Losing to Robert Casey.) Dr. Paul soon after won a special election to fill Casey’s vacant seat for that term. (Mr. Casey had taken a federal appointment.) Dr. Paul lost the seat in 1976, but was returned to the House in 1978.

In 1984, Rep. Paul lost the Republican Texas U.S. Senate primary to the terrible Phil Gramm. Rep. Paul won 16% in that election.

In 1988, Dr. Paul was the Libertarian nominee for President. He won .5% of the vote nationwide. In this he defeated Lenora Fulani by three-tenths of a percentage point.

Dr. Paul  was elected to the House for a third go-round in 1996 and is still serving.  

A government-hating, kick the little guy when he is down, pork-barreling, professional politician, Representative Paul  is the hero of that sliver of the population that supports the most savage of dog-eat-dog economics. Not surprisingly, as in any cult, these people are enthusiastic for their leader.

(Do you think health insurance for all will come without government involvement?)

Come Election Day 2008, Representative Paul will be an afterthought.   

October 8, 2007 - Posted by | Houston, Politics, Texas | , , ,


  1. Wow, the Ron Paul campaign is pissing off the neocon war machine, and uber-progressives who make a slippery slope assumption that scaling back the gov’t will turn the world into a dog-eat-dog hellhole. We must be doing something right!

    Comment by Paul | October 8, 2007

  2. Interesting descriptions of Dr. Paul there. Do you also view the Founding Fathers, Jefferson, Madison, et. al. as “government-hating, kick the little guy when he is down” types? I assume so since Dr. Paul’s views of the proper role of government is far more closely aligned with them than any other presidential candidate or member of Congress.

    “Pork-barreling”? You’ve got to be kidding! He votes AGAINST spending bills far more than anyone else in Congress! FYI, his defense of earmarks is, sensibly, that it’s better for Congress to make the decisions how appropriation bills are spent than unaccountable bureaucrats. That he almost always votes AGAINST the bills anyway doesn’t seem to registered in your mind.

    “Professional politician?” Considering he had a long career as an obstetrician is quite meaningless. There are plenty of members of Congress who have much longer, uninterrupted careers as politicians – do you refer to all of them this way or only the ones who aren’t “liberal” enough for you?

    And “health insurance for all” is a terrible idea that defies all economic logic, despite what the less-than-honest Michael Moore claims. And if health care were a fundamental right of the people, why didn’t the Founding Fathers write this into the Bill of Rights? Oh, yeah, they must have been “economic Darwinists” too.

    Comment by Robert Mayer | October 8, 2007

  3. You sound like such a little whiney baby. Why don’t you grow a pair and realize that nobody is buying the shit that you’re spewing and that you’re wrong.

    Comment by Danny | October 8, 2007

  4. Paul—I’m no progressive. I’m a liberal!

    Mr.Mayer— 1.Everybody claims the Founding Fathers—Blah Blah Blah. 2. Rep. Paul loves bringing home the booty for his district. It’s other folks that he says should restrain themselves. 3. I think it’s okay to be a professional politician. I would just think that libertarians would have a different view. Dr. Paul has been running for office FOREVER! 4. Yeah—Madison sat around thinking about how much chemo would cost.

    Thank you both for your comments.

    Comment by Neil Aquino | October 8, 2007

  5. Danny–I feel we disagree.

    Comment by Neil Aquino | October 8, 2007

  6. Liberal? There’s a word that has gotten it’s meaning so twisted over the last 100 years that is now has NO MEANING whatsoever. Once upon a time it meant someone who believed in Liberty. Now it is used to mean someone who believes in socialist dictatorship. By proudly proclaiming that you are a “liberal” you are telling me that you believe in dictatorship. Fine, I know of a few of them around the world where you would fit right in.
    Ludwig von Mises pointed out many years ago that there are two – and ONLY two ways society can allocate scarce resources: through the free market and the price mechanism, or through socialist dictatorship. There is no middle ground, no “third way.” Any attempt to compromise either of these positions results in an unstable economy that must ultimately tip one way or the other. You cannot divide freedom up into pieces. You must either accept freedom and the responsibility it brings, or you must become a slave to the state. There are no other options.
    Before shooting your mouth off about Ron Paul’s economic ideas I suggest you do what he did – study economics for 3 or 4 decades. All of Ron Paul’s positions, including his position on healthcare, are carefully reasoned positions and thoroughly researched. Unlike the other candidates, he does his homework.
    I remember a time in my life when virtually everyone had health insurance. Then, in the 1970s, the federal government stuck its ugly nose into the healthcare business with the HMO act and the whole “managed care” scheme. Since that time healthcare costs have continued to rise, while availability continues to decline. Before these stupid laws, you didn’t need “prior approval” to get medical tests done. You got the test done, sent the bill to the insurance company and they paid the claim. Period. There was no waiting to get approval, no denials of coverage. You got the care you needed. There was NO PROBLEM at all with healthcare until the government messed it up.
    Ron Paul wants to fix the problem by getting the government out of the way. Then, and ONLY then, can we have a real market for healthcare. Then and ONLY then will we have a chance for everyone who needs care to get it.
    Right now, what’s left of the US healthcare market serves as a safety valve for people in Canada who can’t get care from their socialized system. Where will our safety valve be when we have socialized medicine? Where will you go when the government says “Sorry, we’ve used up our quota for your particular treatment, come back next year?” Really, where will you go?
    Ron Paul is the only truly compassionate candidate because he is the only one who understand what will actually WORK. He doesn’t make pie in the sky promises that cannot be fulfilled. He just tells the truth even when that truth may be painful to those who hear it.

    Comment by Mike Wagner | October 8, 2007

  7. Mike—Thanks for your comment. People know that Canada and much of Europe have government health care without a socialist dictatorship. And they know that in American healthcare today, a few make big profits while many go without care.

    Comment by Neil Aquino | October 8, 2007

  8. Neil, they have it because we continue to be the safety valve. Once we no longer serve that function, their system will collapse. It is not sustainable.
    Also, Europe is teetering very, very close to dictatorship. It’s only a matter of time before the EU consolidates its power.
    As I said ANY compromise between the two systems is unstable and the balance WILL tip one way or the other.
    Socialism doesn’t work, and I refuse to enable its institution in the “land of the free.”
    Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate worthy of my vote. I will not, I cannot in good conscience vote for any of the others.

    Comment by Mike Wagner | October 8, 2007

  9. Mike–I think we’ll just disagree and I think neither of us will really see what we want on Election Day next year.

    Comment by Neil Aquino | October 8, 2007

  10. Mr. Aquino, The views you propound constitute a melding of Canadian Health Care and some of the “finer” third world dictatorships to be found in certain parts of Africa and Southeast Asia. Resultantly, I humbly suggest that you present to the heirs apparent of Pol Pot the advantages of said Canadian health Care and then wait around (and actively lobby for!) those changes in their land…not ours thank you.
    Nuke ‘n Pave Dave

    Comment by Nuke 'n Pave Dave | October 8, 2007

  11. Imagine a libertarian who does not want to share the land with people who have differing views. But I guess the essence of being a libertarian is that you can think any old thing you want.

    Comment by Neil Aquino | October 8, 2007

  12. Poor Neil! Ron Paul has never been brutal. He’s a small town Dr. that loves his wife and family. He runs for office and because he is so humble and scholarly, he is always so surprised that he wins.

    However, I hear that there are these big “brutal” blonde women that carry BIG assault rifles and make it their job to make sure that no one slanders his name. I hear that one reporter at the Chronicle called him “old” and he was never heard from again. I don’t know who they are, but they are hot, mean and I wouldn’t piss them off.

    BTW, do you work for a living, or do you depend on the government (ie, taxpayers like me) to support you and your needs?

    Comment by Peggy | October 8, 2007

  13. Yeah—a lot of people love their family. You know,it’s really easy to love your wife and kids. Does he love his dog as well? I bet he does.

    Do I work? Yep. Thanks for asking. Do you?

    Comment by Neil Aquino | October 8, 2007

  14. Why certainly — I must contribute to all those big government programs that you people who are afraid of the free market and individual responsibility need to survive on.
    They sure beat working, though.

    Comment by Peggy | October 8, 2007

  15. Well,thanks for the money.

    Comment by Neil Aquino | October 8, 2007

  16. 1) Yes, everyone claims the Founding Fathers, but very few can realistically back up the claims. Ron Paul can.

    2) If Ron loves “bringing home the booty for his district” so much, why does he nearly always vote against the bills? Besides, you ignore the fact that “bringing home the booty” is EXACTLY what all the other congressman really are trying to do… as the vote FOR those fat spending bills.

    3) So it’s OK to be a “professional politician” as long as you don’t have libertarian beliefs? The man has obviously decided to hang around since practically no one else there is sticking up for individual freedom.

    4) So, now you’re implying that health care has only become a “right” now that high-tech (and concomitantly expensive) medical advances have been made to treat conditions that previously no one had access to? Anyway, in case you’ve missed it, Ron Paul has been very critical of our health care system (he should know as both a doctor and one who understands economics); he just rejects the idea that it should be more completely turned over to the government, knowing what a disastrous record the federal government has for managing anything.

    Comment by Robert Mayer | October 8, 2007

  17. Mr.Mayer—1. I don’t agree. 2. He does it. They all do it. Pork creates a lot of jobs and voters like it. I got no real problem with it. It’s just that Rep. Paul is not up-front about it. 3. I don’t care how long he hangs around. It’s up to voters. It just does not seem consistent with what he is saying. Just like his pork barrel votes. 4. You got me—I don’t think we should have had government funded leeches back in powdered wig days.

    Thanks for the comment.

    Comment by Neil Aquino | October 8, 2007

  18. 4. You got me—I don’t think we should have had government funded leeches back in powdered wig days.

    It is interesting that you think we should take money by force now to pay leeches, but that leeches then were somehow different. Why is that?

    Comment by Rich Paul | October 8, 2007

  19. No—that was sarcasm. If people needed leeches, I would have been for paying to help people get leeches. And for as many bleedings as they needed before the treatment killed them.

    Thank you for the comment.

    Comment by Neil Aquino | October 8, 2007

  20. I would argue that the bleeding is killing us now. The higher our taxes go, the more people choose not to do business here. That can mean either just choosing not to work, via early retirement, or it can mean investing their money somewhere else … like China. Either way, the American economy is damaged with every tax increase. That means that real live human beings, who used to take pride in working for a living and depending on nobody, are transformed into leeches, without pride or purpose. This is what socialists call “compassion”.

    I prefer a different solution. Rather than destroying our economy, creating parasites, and then wringing our hands over how to support the parasites, I think that we should free our economy to grow. As the economy grows, jobs are created. As jobs are created, the supply of labor gets tight. As the supply of labor gets tight, companies have to bid more in order to procure labor. This raises wages. There is nothing else it can do. And the people who get these higher wages are actually producing something that their fellow citizens can consume. Everybody wins.

    Socialism, everywhere and always, impoverishes everyone except the very few who manage to get powerful government positions. Only freedom allows each individual to choose how much he wants to consume, and to produce enough to be able to consume as he chooses. Only freedom allows the economy to function without wasting a large fraction of it’s resources on producing products that nobody wants, or on government “make work” projects that produce nothing at all.

    Comment by Rich Paul | October 8, 2007

  21. Mr. Aquino, I notice that you DID NOT take issue with my inferrence that a third world dictatorship might well be better suited for you. I do have to suppose then that I did manage to pinpoint the political system that holds promise for you and your ilk. Before you wade into the fray again (hopefully in the far future), please be so kind as to spend (at the very least!) a few years studying poli-sci and economics. It would make the time spent responding to your inanities so much more entertaining…

    Comment by Nuke 'n Pave Dave | October 8, 2007

  22. I think Texans have learned from their mistake of voting for a simple minded idiot from Texas.

    They did it twice before. I doubt they are that stupid to do it yet again.

    Comment by John Cobarruvias | October 8, 2007

  23. I hope so. But I also hope they are too smart to vote for the simple minded candidates put forward by both of the lesser evil parties, as well. There is, in those parties, only one candidate who actually has an understanding of economics, of the constitution, and of the reasons we cannot continue down the road of empire, which always leads to destruction.

    That candidate is Ron Paul. He is the most intelligent, the most thoughtful, the most peaceful, and the most grounded candidate which has been offered by either of the lesser-evil parties in my lifetime.

    He is our last, best, hope of decentralizing the power structure of this nation, so that it is able to flex, rather than shattering. He is our last, best hope of restoring the Republic which the Constitution specifies, and dismantling the American Empire, before it destroys us. He is our last, best, hope of avoiding an economic collapse which seems, today, to be almost inevitable. He is our last best hope for peace, which America has not had since WWII ended.

    Simple minded candidates, from either the left or right, cannot save America. Ron Paul can. And that is why he is worth fighting for.

    Comment by Rich Paul | October 8, 2007

  24. I am both a leftist and a libertarian, and worked on some of Ron Paul’s early campaigns. From my perspective, it’s clear that liberals and libertarians have huge misconceptions about each other. The notion that liberals advocate any kind of dictatorship is preposterous, and libertarians display their ignorance of the american political process every time they label somebody they don’t like as a “socialist”. Libertarians and progressives should be working together to oppose America’s current drift toward right-wing dictatorship, and I have a rant on-line that goes in depth regarding the reasons they dont: http://www.ccitizens.org/paradigm.htm

    But regarding Ron Paul: I think his election would have immediate catastrophic consequences. Libertarians (and Ron Paul) do not understand the extent to which our economy and standard of living is dependent on bank credit and military power. Ron Paul would impose a form of “shock therapy” that would topple this house of cards.

    For example: He would abolish the IRS on his first day in office. In other words, we would pay neither the principal nor the interest on the $trillions in outstanding government bonds. They would become worthless, and the whole world’s financial markets would meltdown overnight. If elected, Ron Paul wouldn’t last a week. As much as we all hate the IRS, it is essential that the national debt be completely paid off before repealing the tax. This means RAISING taxes, beginning by rescinding the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy.

    And then there is the military and foreign policy. It protects our access to foreign natural resources, especially oil. Dismantle the military, and most of the world would benefit – but not America. Trade your SUV in for a Moped.

    Libertarian since before there was a party.

    Comment by R.S.Hradilek | October 9, 2007

  25. The comments by R.S.Hradilek and Neil Aquino illustrate how low a person will stoop to prevent honest debate by denying existing and inventing new facts. Both of these socialists should be ashamed because neither can name pork that candidate Paul has either supported or obtained, and because neither will offer evidence to validate the truth of any of their calamitous, but baseless assertions.

    If there are any here who really care about Ron Paul’s ACTUAL voting record, or about the non-catastrophic methods he would employ to rid our nation of the foreign (and domestic) leeches, you will find the truth beginning here. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

    Comment by JAR | October 9, 2007

  26. JAR–How timely your comment is. Today’s Houston Chronicle details that Rep. Paul’s district received more than $4 billion in federal aid in fiscal year 2006 and is high on the list on money received from the feds. So there you go. Restraint for evrybody else and a big party at home–That is Ron Paul!

    Comment by Neil Aquino | October 9, 2007

  27. WOW! You really bring the wingnuts out from under the furniture don’t you? If they would just look around, and think back a bit, they might realise that AMERICA was a HUGELY LIBERAL idea, that for the most part has worked! The fact that they even get WEEKENDS OFF is so liberal that there was a time when Ford Motor Company had it’s own private army to fight against the workers who thought it was reasonable.

    The common thread throughout the comments seems to be that OTHER countries who offer medical care to their citizens are near bankruptcy and about to fall into god knows what kind of pit. If the wingnuts would LOOK AROUND they might see that it is US who are near those places in history thanks to the ministrations of their hero GW Boosh.

    Oh gosh, do I seem angry?
    I am glad to be a liberal as far from Texas as I can be. God Bless you for continuing the struggle!

    Comment by Mr. Natural | October 9, 2007

  28. JAR: Can you read? My post said NOTHING about pork, and offered no advocacy of socialism. I am, in fact, a free market libertarian of long standing. The market forces that would come to bear on America in the event we were to suddenly loose militarily protected access to the world’s natural resources and repudiate the national debt are very real. Our economy would collapse as though it were shot in the brain stem. In a moral sense, it could be argued that we deserve this. The usual libertarian perception, however, is that we would be better off because our taxes would be lower. More money + MUCH less oil = hyperinflation, the most likely scenario.

    I encourage honest debate – not JAR’s lame name calling. The debate I would like to start, however, addresses the extremely right-wing partisan nature of the modern libertarian movement. Go here: http://www.ccitizens.org/paradigm.htm

    Not a socialist.

    Comment by R.S.Hradilek | October 9, 2007

  29. There is no reason that an end to the IRS implies a repudiation of the national debt. Yes, the money collected by the income tax is approximately equal to the interest on the national debt. This is a numerical accident. The elimination of the Income Tax (probably the worst possible way a government can collect taxes) could be combined with a spending cut (especially in the areas of foreign aid, foreign troop deployments, reducing the prison population by using prosecutorial discretion on non-violent victimless crimes, cutting corporate welfare, cutting farm subsidies — which was a net benefit to farmers in New Zealand, since it freed them to adjust to the market, and removing other unconstitutional programs) would go a long way toward allowing us to pay the national debt with current tax receipts.

    Also, note that the huge economic boom which would ensue would create work at a rate we cannot even imagine. I would expect, for several years, to see rates of growth on the order of China’s 10%, as they abandoned socialism. This would both reduce legitimate need for social welfare, by creating jobs MUCH faster than population growth (it takes 18 years to make a new worker, 18 minutes to make a new job, in an advancing economy). This will also increase the wages of labor, as employers have to compete to hire workers away from each other.

    To those familiar only with (discredited) Keynesian economic, should note that this does not create inflation. The only thing which creates inflation is inflating the money supply. That is what inflation means. This can be done by banks, through fractional reserve, or it can be done by the Federal Reserve through printing money. Either way it has nothing to do with “wage inflation”. As for “inflation” from tax cuts, this is also impossible, if the tax cuts are accompanied with spending cuts. The government spending cuts, which allowed us to continue to service the national debt, would reduce aggregate demand, broadly defined. The tax cuts, if they were equal to the spending cuts, would restore aggregate demand, broadly defined, to their prior level. That means no inflation, as the “general price level”, to the extent you can measure such a thing, is found at the intersection of aggregate demand (broadly defined) and aggregate supply (broadly defined).

    As for what would happen if we were to “lose” our ability to take natural resources by force, the market would adjust. Of course, we would not entirely lose our ability to procure Middle Eastern oil. Why? Because in the middle east, they have nothing but oil. They have no industrial economy to speak of. That leaves them with two choices: 1) sell oil 2) starve. I suspect they would choose the former. Good evidence is the fact that they happily sell oil to nations which do NOT have any military presence in the Middle East.

    Either way, it doesn’t much matter. The upper limit on the price of oil is the price of the next most efficient technology. We cannot get anywhere with ethanol from corn as fuel. We can, however, do pretty well with ethanol from sugar as fuel. This is impossible now, because we charge huge tariffs on imported sugar and imported ethanol. We need to repeal these tariffs. Brazil and Cuba (WHY are we boycotting Cuba?) would be very happy to sell us sugar, as would other sugar producing nations.

    We also need to start drilling for oil anyplace we can. That means Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, etc, etc.

    The United States was an experiment by Liberals. But they were liberals who preceded Marx. They saw, as modern liberals do not, that economic liberty is inseparable from personal liberty, because if you allow the government to control your livelihood, they automatically control your life. That is what Feudalism, from which they were in the process of emerging was all about: economic power and political power were equal, because the nobles (government officials) controlled all economic activity. The rest of the people were serfs.

    Comment by Rich Paul | October 11, 2007

  30. I should note that there would be huge economic changes from shifting our production from bombs, bullets, and bastinado to bread, butter, and beer. This would be entrepreneurial opportunity, to correct malinvestment, not disaster. Standards of living might drop somewhat in the interim, as the market adjusted, but not in a big way and not for long.

    The alternative, printing and borrowing money for constant war, will lead to hyperinflation. We don’t know what the end result of this will be, since the human race has never before been so stupid as to us a fiat currency (the dollar) as the backing for every other currency in the world. I would expect not only a depression which makes the “Great Depression” look like a passing bad mood, but also huge, unprecedented, disorders, where “civil blood makes civil hands unclean”.

    We are at the crossroads. If we continue on the current course, and neither Clinton nor Obama show any signs of turning away from Imperialism, then our generation will preside over the end of America as we know it. I, at least, have the consolation of knowing that should that happen, I will die fighting.

    Comment by Rich Paul | October 11, 2007

  31. I appreciate that the previous post is based on economic theory, because it’s something I rarely hear from my lefty friends. Pure economic theory is not only the strongest feature of the libertarian paradigm, it is the left’s principal weakness. It is in the application of this theory where most of my fellow libertarians consistently fail to deliver accurate analysis – of the american political process, of world events, or even of how our economy actually works. I am mostly in agreement with the post above, in that a market economy would ultimately adjust to everything after major turmoil. It does not automatically follow that Americans would be better off materially. I would like to single out one aspect of the above rant: cutting the military budget to zero would present a cost benefit that would boost our economy? Let’s get a clue.

    Suppose I invest in some guns. I use them to hold up convenience stores, liquor stores, some banks, and eventually form a mob. It engages in protection schemes, drugs, and a certain amount of violence. The revenue I get from these activities is many times the cost of the guns, but I lie to my wife and family about what I do for a living. They think I am the chief of Police, and make a very respectable salary protecting the community from the rampant crime and drug dealing in the area. We live in a big house, and enjoy the good life. But my wife thinks I spend too much money on guns, and doesn’t understand their connection to our extravagant standard of living.

    In countless libertarian platforms and in the individual positions of libertarian candidates (including Ron Paul’s), you will see that America shouldn’t become the “world’s policeman”. Is this what America does? Are we the Good Cop? We spread democracy and freedom, just like Bush says we do? The principle objection to this foreign policy is that it costs too much money. More than anything else, libertarians want lower taxes. They, too, are whining about the cost of the guns – and don’t understand their relation to our high living standards.

    England was the last colonial power with the audacity to call itself an “empire”. The European powers once claimed nearly every country and island on Earth, and looted them of whatever wealth they had. They offered virtually nothing to the indigenous populations in return. Nowadays, Corporate America continues this tradition – but covertly, through CIA operations, election rigging, coup-d’etat, and proxy dictatorships. We remain in partnership with Britain, which drew the map of the modern Middle East and installed their initial governments – all authoritarian. Some of these ruling families are still in power.

    We only bomb countries as a last resort. It’s expensive. John Perkins, a former asset of the National Security Agency, has written a book which outlines how the covert side of our foreign policy works. To hear an interview with him, use this audio link: http://www.ccitizens.org/download/HitMan.mp3 He outlines how every third world nation must align itself with the interests of our corporations. There are three levels of coercion: 1) We set the terms of the relationship with our corporations, through bribes, threats, or special deals. 2) If uncooperative, we do regime change through coup d’etat, assassination or rigged elections. 3) If that fails, we demonize the leader and go to war. The end result is that every country’s national resources and/or cheap labor are available to multi-national corporations at far below market, and Americans have an artificially high standard of living.

    American corporations are in partnership with authoritarian regimes throughout the world. They prefer them. The more brutal they are, the cheaper the labor. There is no respect for the property rights of third world peoples. There are 6.5 billion people on this planet, and most would like to live like Americans. They can’t, because the natural resources don’t exist. Our prosperity depends on their destitution, and on their inability to purchase anything of value with their 70+ hours of weekly labor. Our foreign policy gives the “developed countries” exclusive access to all of the world’s wealth, so we don’t have to share or pay a market price. America’s #1 export commodity is armaments, which are mostly used to keep foreign populations oppressed and impoverished.

    Thus, if a libertarian platform on foreign policy were implemented, all this would hopefully end. Many authoritarian regimes would collapse without American support, and wealth would be distributed more evenly throughout the world. Americans would get much less, but we would be doing the right thing.

    There is a reason why libertarians do not understand any of this: most will not admit ANY factoid into their worldview which implicates the private sector in complicity with government oppression or in control of it. Their positions on foreign policy are consistently sanitized of any mention of corporate motive. Everything must be blamed on socialists, which they imagine are everywhere. Yes, libertarians will die fighting for their cause, which is primarily against the left – unaware that their sympathies are with the oppressor.

    R.S.Hradilek – Houston Tx

    Comment by R.S.Hradilek | October 14, 2007

  32. Some additional points regarding the Rich Paul rant:

    ENERGY: We cannot drill for oil everywhere we can, but only where oil exists. The world currently consumes a billion barrels of oil every 12 days. The most optimistic estimates of the recoverable oil in ANWAR are 11.5 billion barrels. In other words, it’s less than a 6 month’s supply. It won’t make any difference at all.

    Using the most advanced technology for finding oil, all the major reserves have already been found and new discoveries have trickled down to almost nothing. The United States has only 2% of the remaining oil reserves (and that’s counting Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.) At least 70% of remaining reserves are in Islamic countries, which is why we aren’t leaving. Unless we control it, there is a real liklihood that they would refuse to sell to America, and instead supply China, India, Indonesia, etc. Furthermore, if we attack Iran, Hugo Chavez will shut down Citgo and sell Venezuela’s oil to China, Latin America, and Cuba. We might bomb him too (with Columbia as proxy).

    The next cheapest energy source is coal, not ethanol. Ethanol was a failure, even in Brazil where it was massively subsidized. Brazilians don’t even drive much. For the economics on coal gasification, go here: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/031006_shellgame.shtml The world will run out of coal within about 200 years, and will use most of the remaining oil within 20. North America faces a shortage of natural gas, which is very expensive to transport accross oceans. As the minerals were leached out of american farmland decades ago, it will no longer grow anything without fertilizer – made from natural gas.

    INFLATION: There are already enough dollars created to trigger hyper-inflation. They are held as the reserve currency by many foreign nations, and could be dumped on the market in the event of an accellerated decline in the value of the dollar. On the other hand, most of the “dollars” created have never been printed. They are electronic – simply account balances written on the hard drives of financial institutions. In the even of a major financial meltdown, trillions could simply evaporate, and that would be deflationary. There are multiple scenarios.

    NATIONAL DEBT: Yes, repeal of the Income Tax (which only collects enough to pay the interest) DOES amount to a repudiation of the National Debt. What are these remaining tax revenues that would pay both the interest and the balance? Where is this huge tax that libertarians wouldn’t repeal? My statement stands: International bond and financial markets would implode on day one of a Ron Paul presidency, and he wouldn’t last a week.

    Comment by R.S.Hradilek | October 14, 2007

  33. I appreciate what your website is trying to do, but:

    a) You place too much faith in the Democratic party, seemingly blind to the fact they are nearly as corrupt as the Republicans. Our democratic front-runners can’t except us to withdraw from Iraq before 2013. Obama gets accused of being soft after he manages to summon the testicular fortitude to say he would communicate with hostile nations (good for him), and, literally, a day later he states his willingness to invade Pakistan to exterminate Al-Qaeda along the border without their government’s approval. None of the front-runners are willing to take a preemptive (preemptive!) nuclear strike against Iran on the table–and that very much includes Mr. No-option-is-off-the-table Obama. Beyond that, our Democratic-majority Congress is so afraid of being called out for “not support the troops” and losing votes in 2008 that they can’t even stop passing more funding for the war despite (let alone impeach like they ought to) over 2/3 of the American people not supporting the war.

    I’m sorry, but the only Democrats in the race with integrity are Kucinich and Gravel.

    b) I’m not trying to be rude, but your understanding of Ron Paul’s politics is warped and nothing more than a kneejerk response to the fact he’s a Republican and phrases like “smaller government”, “free market”, “end of the welfare state”, etc. Actually take the time to read up and listen to some of his speeches that are done outside the main political venues where he only gets limited chance to speak.

    Frankly, smaller gov’t, free market, etc. etc. are all perfectly good things to believe in and strive for. The problem is that almost all Republicans SAY they want smaller gov’t, then they spend their terms in office doing nothing but increasing the role of gov’t in our lives. They CLAIM they want a free market, but are owned by huge corporations. They WANT to end welfare, but they can offer no way to do so, aside from abruptly cutting people’s benefits (and demonizing the people receiving them in order to justify it).

    Ron Paul is the real thing.

    When he says smaller gov’t, he means it (he wants to abolish the irs, the federal reserve, no national id card, legalization of drugs, ensure habeas corpus is defended, etc.). He’s after institutions like the Federal Reserve and IRS not because they tax big corporations, but because they are a vehicle to redistribute the wealth of the average people to those aforementioned corporations.

    When he says an end to the welfare state, the welfare he is most concerned about isn’t some poor schmoe getting a government check, but -corporate welfare- (i.e. subsidizing corporations).

    He does want individual people to be self-reliant, but he also has compassion and realizes that there needs to be a transition period. With the $300 billion dollars he would cut from overseas military adventurism (not homeland defense), part of that would go to the national debt, and the rest to providing gov’t services to the people who have grown accustomed to them, while trying to wean them off over the course of a couple of generations (not overnight).

    As far as health care, I have some doubts about a gov’t-less system, but he is 100% correct that the current system, while it is for profit, is anything but a free market. We haven’t given the free market an honest chance and I’m willing to listen to his ideas more closely seeing as he was a medical doctor (not a career politician) who put his money where his mouth is (never accepted medicare/medicaid).

    Ron Paul is nothing if not for the average American. I don’t agree with every idea of his (we’d clash on abortion rights for sure), but in terms of being intelligent and sincere to a fault, he is in a class by himself compared to every other candidate. The only thing that impresses me about Hillary is that she’s better at being a typical Republican than most Republicans–maybe that’s why they hate her so much!

    P.S. Ron Paul already addressed all his earmarks, so don’t get too worked up about, gasp, Porkgate. He simply said, as a congressman it’s his responsibility to forward all the requests of his constituents to the federal gov’t. Paraphrasing his own analogy, he’s against the existence of the IRS, but he doesn’t want to prevent people from getting their income tax returns so long as the system is in place.

    Comment by M. D'Avanzo | October 31, 2007

  34. I felt almost guilty writing something so glowing and one-sided, but aside from clashing with him over abortion (which is important to me, but far from the only issue) and the allowed role of religion in the U.S. (which would normally scare the hell out of me, but his policy is sane and I feel it’s a much more telling sign that, unlike the other GOP candidates he does not try to use God or intangible emotional concepts like “honor” to sway opinion and instead sticks to the facts and their logical interpretation to produce an argument, which is all I really ask of people) I really can’t find fault with him.

    Comment by M. D'Avanzo | October 31, 2007

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: