![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
"Resolved: Ron Paul, as US President, would be disastrous for America."
Being a liberal Republican, it is meet* for me to state my stance on Ron Paul.
I believe that Ron Paul would be a terrible President for the reasons cited here. Most prominently among these are:
Citations for Ron Paul's support of each of these are in the link.
* "Meet" meaning suitable, proper, appropriate. It's standard.
I believe that Ron Paul would be a terrible President for the reasons cited here. Most prominently among these are:
- The gold standard would lead to economic turmoil (not to mention devastate industries which use gold),
- The abolition of the income tax would cripple the federal government,
- A law to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on an issue is un-American, even when it is not explicitly intended to bolster prejudice,
Racism - be it against black men in DC or immigrants throughout America - is wrong,(edit: I cannot defend this claim; I withdraw it.) and- Undermining modern medicine would destroy millions of lives in the most brutal fashion.
Citations for Ron Paul's support of each of these are in the link.
* "Meet" meaning suitable, proper, appropriate. It's standard.
no subject
Gold standard: I will cop to not knowing much about industrial uses for gold. I nevertheless remain far from convinced that it is even feasible - for one thing, the amount of gold in circulation (http://www.gold.org/discover/knowledge/faqs/#3) is worth approximately $1 trillion U.S. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=(145%2C000+tons)+*+(238+dollars%2Ftroy+ounce)&btnG=Search) right now, and there's almost that much cash U.S. in circulation already. Besides, where would we get the gold?
Income tax: I posted a couple links in a comment upthread (http://peri-renna.livejournal.com/4301.html?thread=4557#t4557) - note particularly the bits about the budget. Like it or not, we can't cut one trillion U.S. dollars from the budget any time soon.
In addition, the whole "starve the beast" plan seems actively wrongheaded.
Supreme Court: Given Ron Paul's feelings on "the separation of church and state" (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/239/religious-liberty-thwarted-by-the-supreme-court/), I am inclined to impute entirely different motives. Furthermore, I am inclined to grant the Supreme Court power over state government - I would be interested to hear the reasons for opposing it.
Health care: If I'm bleeding to death, giving me a shot of metallic mercury won't help. I'll agree with you that the system is broken, but I'd prefer to support a plan like yours, one that has a reasonable chance of working, rather than Ron Paul's, which won't (and I mean can't).
no subject
Gold Standard:
> I nevertheless remain far from convinced that it is even feasible...
I don't think it's feasible in the short term, but I do think that a plan could be created that would do it. My understanding is that there are some intermediate money systems that would put us on a kind of "partial" gold standard.
> ...for one thing, the amount of gold in circulation is worth approximately $1 trillion U.S. right now...
Mostly because the U.S. dollar has devalued sharply in the last several years. Deflation would fix that number in our favor.
Income Tax:
> I posted a couple links in a comment upthread...
Yeah, I was trying to avoid revisiting anonymous dude's arguments. I don't recall anything there that I specifically disagreed with, but, like you, I dislike dealing with people that won't put their name on what they say.
>Like it or not, we can't cut one trillion U.S. dollars from the budget any time soon.
Immediately, no, but it could be done. I have mixed feelings on this one, admittedly. As I mentioned earlier, I'm furious at the mishandling of funds and the continued upward spiral in taxes. I would like to believe that we could simply dramatically cut the income tax, and continue funding for projects where it made sense to do so. I think the libertarians are badly misguided when they think that free marketism will solve any social problem. That said, I also think that any amount of income tax leaves the door open to continued abuse, and eliminating it altogether more effectively shuts that door.
So, frankly, I don't have a good solution here. What I do know is that I'm sick of contributing 40% of my wages to a series of governments that spends way too much of that money -- my money -- on projects which I am vehemently opposed to. I have played around with the idea of voluntary taxes, and I think we have the technology now to make that feasible, but I don't know of anybody that's done that so I can't be sure that it would work. Essentially, wage earners would have the option of saying, "I want 25% of my taxes to go to Federal Public Health and Welfare, 30% to go to Federal Research, 15% for State and Local...", etc.
>In addition, the whole "starve the beast" plan seems actively wrongheaded.
Why? We're supposed to remove politicians from office when they act against the public interest or commit crimes. Why not say, "You used my tax money to wage an illegal war, so I'm denying you any further funding"?
no subject
no subject
>Furthermore, I am inclined to grant the Supreme Court power over state government - I would be interested to hear the reasons for opposing it.
Well, that would change the structure of the United States government as outlined in the Constitution. That might be OK -- the Constitution, as a document, was designed to adapt to changing social conditions -- but the issue is kinda big. What kind of government structure do you want to live in?
I think the system, as it was established, was designed primarily to give people options. It was designed by people who mostly had fled other countries for one reason or another, governmental, bureaucratical, or religious. I think they wanted to set up a system where it was easy to find a home that they would be comfortable in.
For example, if abortion is important to you, then under a weak federal government you have the option of moving (or traveling to) a state whose laws and policies match your beliefs. Under a strong federal government, on the other hand, the same law gets enforced across all states, so now you're out of luck.
I am not in favor of a strong federal government for that reason more than any other. A few states have made some effort to establish their own identity -- New Hampshire, for example, as the home for those who care about liberty, and Massachusetts as the state for educated people -- and I would like to see more of that, not less. I'd like to see what shakes out if we give the states the freedom to establish more of their own policies, and maybe I could find a place to live that would be less objectionable. Instead, I have fewer options, thanks to a too-powerful federal government that can set state policy on everything from education to science to religion.
Health Care:
>I'll agree with you that the system is broken, but I'd prefer to support a plan like yours, one that has a reasonable chance of working, rather than Ron Paul's, which won't (and I mean can't).
...Yeah. I hate to agree on this, but, as a system, it can't work. It could work from the individual view point, where you'd still have the option of going to some facility that treated you in the way you wanted to be treated. If you're educated, then you might get effective treatment.
The cynical bits of me say that this is a great way to let all those people with no scientific understanding to self-select themselves out of the population, but, then the socially responsible part of me comes along and says that I don't really want to do that.
Tempting, though.