Ron Paul Announces He's Running (Is it his time?)

191012141519

Comments

  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Ron Paul owns O'Reilly's water boy Jesse Watters



    The very end is the best part. Awesome.
  • noahjnoahj Posts: 4,500member
    I just read the transcript of the Republican debate. this last part by Ron Paul was, I thought very good. It speaks to many of the questions asked on these boards. I don't think the transcript is correct in many of the words they wrote, but I think it gets the point across well.



    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/us...pagewanted=all

    Quote:

    WILLIAMS: Congressman Paul, a long time ago...



    (APPLAUSE) A long time ago, a fellow Texan of yours, a young student teacher in Cotulla, Texas, was horrified to see young kids coming into the classroom hungry, some of them with distended bellies because of hunger. He made a vow that if he ever had anything to do about it, the government would provide meals, hot meals at best, in schools. The young student teacher, of course, was -- later went on to be President Lyndon Johnson. Do you think that is any more -- providing nutrition at schools for children -- a role of the federal government?



    PAUL: Well, I'm sure, when he did that, he did it with local government, and there's no rules against that. That'd be fine. So that doesn't imply that you want to endorse the entire welfare state. You imply (ph) I'd endorse all welfare (ph). Any time I challenge it, you're going to challenge the whole welfare system.



    No. It isn't authorized in the Constitution for us to run a welfare state. And it doesn't work. All it's filled up with is mandates. And the mandates are what we're objecting to. I want to repeal all the mandates.



    But, yes, if there are poor people in Texas, we have a responsibility -- I'd like to see it voluntary as possible -- but under our Constitution, our states have that right -- if they feel the obligation, they have a perfect right to.



    So don't always try to turn around and say that we who believe in liberty, we lack compassion, because we who believe in liberty and understand the market, we're the only ones that really understand how people are taken care of, how they are fed, and how people have jobs. It's the market. It's never the government that does it.



    So this whole idea that there's something wrong with people who don't lavish out free stuff from the federal government somehow aren't compassionate enough. I resist those accusations.



  • nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post


    I just read the transcript of the Republican debate. this last part by Ron Paul was, I thought very good. It speaks to many of the questions asked on these boards. I don't think the transcript is correct in many of the words they wrote, but I think it gets the point across well.



    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/us...pagewanted=all



    He sounds a bit on the fence though in the quote you provided. Who exactly would take care of the poor? "As voluntary as possible" sounds vague.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post


    He sounds a bit on the fence though in the quote you provided. Who exactly would take care of the poor? "As voluntary as possible" sounds vague.



    Oh... and if voluntary doesn't cut it, then just ignore the rest of what I said...
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post


    He sounds a bit on the fence though in the quote you provided. Who exactly would take care of the poor? "As voluntary as possible" sounds vague.



    The whole idea of Tea Partyists, laissez faire economists and anti-tax/anti-welfare Libertarians is that if we stop taking care of the poor, then the poor will be forced to take care of themselves. Which has never worked in history, of course, but don't let that stop them from dreaming of their Utopia.
  • noahjnoahj Posts: 4,500member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    The whole idea of Tea Partyists, laissez faire economists and anti-tax/anti-welfare Libertarians is that if we stop taking care of the poor, then the poor will be forced to take care of themselves. Which has never worked in history, of course, but don't let that stop them from dreaming of their Utopia.



    Read it again and this time remove your Bias against what you think his agenda is. There were some words, "as voluntary as possible" for example that were a bit vague as was mentioned, but overall he seemed to be very clear where he drew the line. Read it a couple of times.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    tonton seems to have missed the part where Dr. Paul said that under our Constitution it is perfectly within the right of each state government to "take care of the poor" if that's how the people in that state want to address the issue.
  • noahjnoahj Posts: 4,500member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    tonton seems to have missed the part where Dr. Paul said that under our Constitution it is perfectly within the right of each state government to "take care of the poor" if that's how the people in that state want to address the issue.



    I wanted to hear it from him. Now you have tainted the reply.



  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post


    I wanted to hear it from him. Now you have tainted the reply.







    I doubt he would have admitted it. But I'll recant if he does.
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    I found this particular paragraph interesting about Ron Paul's views (it's written by Paul)-



    "Therefore, a transition away from the existing entitlement scheme is needed. This is why a constitutionalist president should propose devoting half of the savings from the cuts in wars and other foreign spending, corporate welfare, and unnecessary and unconstitutional bureaucracies to shoring up Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and providing enough money to finance government?s obligations to those who are already stuck in the system and cannot make alternative provisions. This re-routing of spending would allow payroll taxes to be slashed. The eventual goal would be to move to a completely voluntary system where people only pay payroll taxes into Social Security and Medicare if they choose to participate in those programs. Americans who do not want to participate would be free not to do so, but they would forgo any claim to Social Security or Medicare benefits after retirement."

    ~ http://tulsachange.com/my-plan-for-a...ident-ron-paul



    So it's constitutional at a federal level in Paul's view if people voluntarily choose the program. That means he must only consider it legal at a state level if people voluntarily choose it also, surely?
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Ron Paul has stated very clearly that under our Constitution states have the right to institute such government programs.



    I would think, based on his own political philosophy, that he wants the state programs to be voluntary, as well. But he acknowledges that it is legal under the Constitution for states to put such programs in place.



    Also note that he doesn't want to just stop all unconstitutional programs immediately, but grandfather them out over time in favor of opt-in programs.
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    Ron Paul has stated very clearly that under our Constitution states have the right to institute such government programs.



    I would think, based on his own political philosophy, that he wants the state programs to be voluntary, as well. But he acknowledges that it is legal under the Constitution for states to put such programs in place.



    Also note that he doesn't want to just stop all unconstitutional programs immediately, but grandfather them out over time in favor of opt-in programs.



    I'm surprised there'd be a difference on that. Do you have a link showing where mandating entitlement programs is constitutional at a state level according to Paul?



    Clearly Ron Paul doesn't want to flip the switch too quickly as say mj1970 appears to want, though he does talk about executing power as potus with executive orders as a quicker route to establishing new policy. I would wonder what the impacts of such orders would have on existing programs, many of which fall outside of the big three he mentions here.
  • noahjnoahj Posts: 4,500member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post


    I'm surprised there'd be a difference on that. Do you have a link showing where mandating entitlement programs is constitutional at a state level according to Paul?



    Clearly Ron Paul doesn't want to flip the switch too quickly as say mj1970 appears to want, though he does talk about executing power as potus with executive orders as a quicker route to establishing new policy. I would wonder what the impacts of such orders would have on existing programs, many of which fall outside of the big three he mentions here.



    Read this more then once.

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=223
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post


    Read this more then once.

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=223



    OK, I had read that. The SCOTUS though sees it as constitutional at a federal level also though, not just the state level. Why doesn't Paul think so too?
  • noahjnoahj Posts: 4,500member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post


    OK, I had read that. The SCOTUS though sees it as constitutional at a federal level also though, not just the state level. Why doesn't Paul think so too?



    Because in his interpretation of the Constitution, any powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution are specifically left to the states only. His particular problem is with Federal Mandates where there is not a choice. With State Mandates, it is constitutionally left to the state if they wish to do it. He does not seem to like Mandates at all, but there is no Constitutional problem with them from his perspective.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post


    Because in his interpretation of the Constitution, any powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution are specifically left to the states only. His particular problem is with Federal Mandates where there is not a choice. With State Mandates, it is constitutionally left to the state if they wish to do it. He does not seem to like Mandates at all, but there is no Constitutional problem with them from his perspective.



    Why on earth should I believe Ron Paul is more of a constitutional expert or legal authority than the SCOTUS, unless his conclusion is what I wanted to hear in the first place?
  • noahjnoahj Posts: 4,500member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Why on earth should I believe Ron Paul is more of a constitutional expert or legal authority than the SCOTUS, unless his conclusion is what I wanted to hear in the first place?



    Why don't you show me where the SCOTUS and Ron Paul actually disagree and then I may be more willing to talk about it?
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,064member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post


    Why don't you show me where the SCOTUS and Ron Paul actually disagree and then I may be more willing to talk about it?



    The Supreme Court sees the Commerce Clause and "Necessary and Proper" as a completely legal justification for the national government to provide services and tax its citizens.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Does the Constitution grant the government a monopoly on those services?
Sign In or Register to comment.