Ron Paul: Examined by a Left-Wing Radical
We’ve all seen the signs at this point… At least in the western half of this country. “Ron Paul Revolution!” The signs look more like some kind of underground punk band and not an advertisement for a Texan in a suit. Then again, the Ron Paul campaign is not involved in the “revolution” movement. Here is the sign, if you’ve not seen one yet:
Some on the left have applauded Ron Paul for some of his positions. I would like to echo these statements and add that the Democrats should be brave enough to stand up and say some of the things Dr. Paul has said. Here are some examples of what I’m talking about.
Ron Paul wants to get the US military out of Iraq, but he also wants to get the US military out of every foreign nation. I couldn’t agree with him more. We are wasting money keeping troops in Korea for 50 years, keeping troops in Europe for 60. Troops in those countries are not protecting our national security. And we do not have a mandate that says we must police the world. If anything the radical groups of the Middle East’s message has been clear: get out of the Middle East and Palestine. Rather than accept this we go on with the rhetoric of “they hate us for our freedom.” (Giuliani et al) What nonsense! It’s refreshing to hear anyone, let alone a Republican stand up and say we need our troops out of these countries.
Dr. Paul is also right when he says that the over-spending must stop. The idea that we are relying on China to finance a failed war that the majority of Americans do not support is frightening. How can that even be happening? The truth of the matter, as Paul would agree, is that this Republican administration has over spent in record amounts and have run the national deficit into the trillions. These are the people that are “financially conservative?” Please, Paul’s suggestion for spending is to return to the Clinton era. Ironic no?
Paul loses me on a critical issue, however, and that is his idea of abolishing income tax and with it 1/3 of the government’s budget. While I detest the way this government spends money abroad, both Democrats and Republicans are guilty here, I can’t let the government’s funding wane. Rather, I want a government that is investing in the lives of the people it represents, rather than monetary interests from big party donors abroad. Rather than abolishing taxes we should be reinvesting. We are already paying enough money to pay for everyone in this country to have universal health care, free college educations, free pre-K programs, social security that provides for people to live above the poverty line, the list could go on. We’re simply spending the money on failed efforts at Americanizing the world.
Ron Paul has some great ideas, and his forthrightness is refreshing. Perhaps the best compliment I can give him, though, is that I can actually fathom how a Republican could support Ron Paul. His thinking makes sense, he’s consistent, he actually has a plan to do something in this country domestically unlike the rest of his field who either want to make abortion illegal or continuing a failing war for the rest of our lives. So, my Republican friends, I applaud your support for Dr. Paul, and if you really like his ideas I recommend you take a look at http://www.dennis4president.com/. Kucinich has all the same stances on foreign policy issues and yet also wants to make life better for every American at home rather than asking Americans to put out their own fires, build their own roads and bridges, and home school their children. Yes I know this isn’t part of Paul’s campaign speeches but these are the things that taxes fund.
Does this make me part of the Revolution? I hope not, I think.
on October 25th, 2007 at
Overall a fair a assessment. I disagree with your stance regarding the taxes and where they should be spent, but only from a cynical point of view. If I felt that the government could provide those services competently, efficiently, and cost-effectively I would agree with you completely. I have, however, had the government prove to me they cannot and so it is my preference to keep that couple of thousand dollars for myself, save for my own retirement with half of it and use the rest to help my community.
on October 25th, 2007 at
Thank you for the honest article.
I disagree regarding taxes, but rather than making a long convoluted argument, I’ll ask a question for you to think about.
What would you do if there was no federal government programs to invest in social issues ? Would you take the responsibility for your less fortunate neighbors, and family members ? Would we do a better job of working together, care for one another more, think about our communities more ? . Do you believe people are basically good, with some flaws, or are basically evil and need to be coerced into doing what is right ?
on October 25th, 2007 at
I don’t think federal programs that deal with crucial issues such as healthcare, education, etc. are forcing people into doing what is right. The state of our current society is one of greed, where people want to keep what they have and not share it with others who are in need. People are dying, going hungry, and living in pain all over America, and no neighbors are taking care of these less fortunate humans. Thus, it is our responsibility to fund programs to help these people. It is an interesting dichotomy that the religious right do not feel obligated to help these people, as the Bible teaches. Simply put, there is a great divide between the haves and have nots, and while Larry has the ability to keep a couple thousand dollars for himself to save for his retirement, many do not have that luxury and no one is jumping at the opportunity to help them.
on October 25th, 2007 at
See also:
Ron Paul climbs to 4% in California poll, tied with Huckabee
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_climbs_to_4_in_California_poll_tied_with_Huckabee
on October 25th, 2007 at
Just a couple quick points… fire departments have nothing to do with the federal government or federal income taxes… they are local and funded locally. That seems to work very well… so well in fact it might be an idea to try that with education…
on October 25th, 2007 at
@ B MoR
You are right, the state of society is one of greed, ever wonder why? Perhaps if people were able to keep the fruits of their labor (No Income Tax) they would be less greedy with their money. All social programs should be voluntary. Feeding the African children is a noble cause, but when you put a gun to a person’s head and say “give me your money or you WILL be arrested” you lose the moral high ground. If a person does not pay his mandatory taxes they will go to prison. A charitable program loses all validity under these circumstances.
on October 25th, 2007 at
Aren’t most roads paid for by the gas tax? I believe fire departments are paid by state and local taxes, not federal. The federal personal income tax is a shame. It forces people to pay for murder and oppression, plain and simple. No true God fearing person would pay them a cent.
on October 25th, 2007 at
This is funny. Dr. Paul’s message is NOT one of picking and choosing what you want from the Constitution. It has to be all (socialism) or nothing (self direction), otherwise special interests will always prevail in a society of greed (read Homo Sapien). The sense of entitlement in this country is astounding. You should hear my mother talk! Dr.Paul is the only baby boomer I would EVER consider for a representative. FDR and the 60’s and 70’s really messed this country up. Little FYI plus 50 crowd, there will be no SSI, Medicare, or “special programs” for you. You, like most people, are not special or entitled to these things. You paid in, but were too trusting that these things were really going to be available to you. Do you really think that Gen X and Y is going to accept 60% tax rates to pay for you??? When there is NO pension, NO Social Security, Hell, no real chance of not dying poor ( at least by today’s standards) for us? No, instead we will take care of our own family’s needs; and form a new “drop out” society, of taxes and oppression.
This will happen, as Homo Sapien IS greedy, and eventually when the money runs out, we will eventually be left to fend for ourselves, again. Might as well embrace it, and not sell out your personal liberty’s to save your entitlements. Anyone under 40 knows deep down that at least half the people you know feel the same way.
Dr.Paul ‘08
on October 25th, 2007 at
Uh, if you don’t want big spending then why do you think we need the IRS? We can do without it.
Just say NO to socialism.
on October 25th, 2007 at
Ron Paul has repeatedly stated that reducing the size of the Federal Government (and rolling back taxes) would be incremental and planned so as to not immediately leave those who have become dependent on government at risk of starvation.
The United States of America did not have an Income Tax until 1913- and yet somehow we survived and produced wealth and enjoyed enormously high literacy rates and a generally healthier (with exceptions) degree of charity between citizens. The tax revenues enjoyed by the Federal Government by the unratified 16th amendment (income tax) basically are what fund our empire- the massive military state that forces other nations to conform to our will or be destroyed (economically or militarily).
on October 25th, 2007 at
Your comparison between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich is interesting. They do share a lot of views on foreign policy, but there they diverge — and unfortunately I disagree with most everything Kucinich stands for domestically.
That said, there is one thing that would make me consider voting for Kucinich — he seems to truly speak his mind. And I’m to the point that I would rather vote for an honest person I completely disagree with, than another empty suit that says what they think I want to hear.
on October 25th, 2007 at
I will clarify for B MoR, if there was no federal income tax, I could afford to do that. As it stands, I cannot. So really part of the dilemma is the assume, and false, premise that people will behave exactly the same with or without the income tax. Generosity dries up when you have to work extra hard to make ends meet. I work about 50-60 hours a week to make sure my wife and I are taken care of. I still donate a few hundred dollars each year to charities but never more.Without the income tax, I suddenly have a choice, I can cut back on my work and still take care of us but then have time to volunteer and help out my community, or I can keep working like I do and have a lot of extra money to donate.
on October 25th, 2007 at
I believe we need a rally point to focus on. Getting back to the basics. What point? Freedom.
If you believe this, there are 100,000 patriots joining together on the 5th of November to donate $100 each to Ron Paul’s campaign. Go to thisnovember5th.com and sign up if you feel the same.
on October 26th, 2007 at
If education and health care are free, why do you need my money to pay for it? That is something I never really quite understood. Why pay for free stuff? I think you meant to say, education and health care paid by some, against their will, for the benefit of others. Socialism has always led to poverty. No country on earth has ever grown wealthy thanks to socialism.
on October 26th, 2007 at
A Kucinich/Paul presidency (or vice versa) would be the ideal ticket…
on October 26th, 2007 at
A Kucinich/Paul ticket would be the domestic equivalent of a Paul/Huckabee ticket when it comes to foreign policy. The ideas of the pair so completely contradict each other that it couldn’t work.
on October 26th, 2007 at
I responded in a new post rather than here. You can read it at http://liberalcollegekid.com/2007/10/26/ron-paul-examined-by-a-left-wing-radical-part-ii/
on October 27th, 2007 at
I’m still waiting for all these leftists who have fallen in love with Ron Paul because of his stance on one issue to actually examine his record and philosophy.
For example, you say “he actually has a plan to do something in this country domestically unlike the rest of his field who either want to make abortion illegal.”
Um, a quick google search will show that the great liberal hope is - hate to break this to you - pro-life.
http://www.ronpaulprolife.com/
Oh, and wait…did you know that Ron Paul is a *gasp!* christian social conservative? Yep, that’s right. In fact, he believes that “the notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.” And ” the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view.”
Its all right here in his article called “The War on Religion.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
And, to round it out, Paul is opposed to same-sex marriage, unrestricted immigration, gun control, and the United Nations.
So, aside from being against the war in Iraq, Ron Paul’s domestic stance on nearly every single issue supposedly inportant to the left is as far right-wing as it gets.
I get quite a chuckle whenever I hear lefties latch on to a candidate who happens to be ”evil’ on every other posision,
on October 29th, 2007 at
In regard to liberal concerns about the income tax, etc. please take a look at this and let me know what you think:http://girlinshortshorts.blogspot.com/2007/10/liberals-for-ron-paul.html
on October 29th, 2007 at
Marshall, you fail to acknowledge a key point. The man’s base philosophy of constitutional government means that his personal views, which are indeed very conservative, are meaningless in regards to how the country is run at the federal level because he feels all those issues you bring up are state issues. Those things would matter a whole lot to me as a Texas resident were he in my state legislature, but as a congressman and as a president, it means little to nothing.
on October 29th, 2007 at
I agree here with Larry, Marshall is missing the point. Ron Paul is attractive to liberals for the same reason he’s attractive to libertarians: he’s for state’s rights. The idea that the state should be deciding the social policies instead of the federal government is a noble one. This way, a state like Nevada does not have to have the same social policies as a state like California. But, California doesn’t have to base their policies on the will of the Religious Right or the solid south etc. I think a lot of liberals are for state’s rights, they just equate state’s rights with things like gun ownership and other conservative talking points. Obviously the federal system should be used for oversight, but I’m inclined to agree with Mr. Paul that the federal government has over stepped its constitutional bounds.
on March 6th, 2008 at
Soma….
Soma intimates. Soma addiction and lying. Soma. Pornstar soma. Watson soma. Coupons for soma by chicos. Rise against soma tickets….
on May 16th, 2008 at
Buy tramadol online cod….
Buy cheap tramadol tramadol mg quick delivery cod….