Can Someone explain something to me (Ron Paul Related)

If Ron Paul was for survival of the fittest as you suggest, wouldn't he also be for war? Think about it.

You are slightly confused with Ron Paul's ideas.

Medicare costs money -- tax payer money -- it's not free

The free market makes homes for the elderly -- it also costs money -- but less than government because the free market is more efficient than the government.

So really it's a simple choice, do you

A) want money taken from you through taxes so it can fund an inefficient project you may never use,

or

B) vote with your money in a competitive free market where the inefficient business go bankrupt rather than being propped up by the state.

I love your questions because they were based upon what the media has spooned out on Ron Paul's policies. In truth they are told to spin them to make them look as bad as possible because Ron Paul is a major threat to both parties; There is one thing that he stands for and has consistently for the past 30 years, give the power back to the people and the state governements as outlined in the constitution. Remember, the federal gov. was created to serve as police force of state governments, ensuring free domestic trade between states, protect the sovereignty of the nation from outside and within (military), and be our voice on the international stage. EVRYTHING else was to be left to state governments and the people. Did you know the IRS is illegal according to the constitution, which is why it is forced to operate out of Puerto Rico to operate and collect from us? The federal gov. can only tax goods per the constitution and imports/exports (more goods), NOT SEVRICES. Anyway here goes my friend

1) Ron Paul wants these programs moved to the state level because he believes they would be much more efficent in the allocation of resources, where it goes to those who need it, not those who abuse it and don't. It is a very logical course of action and would actually reduce the costs while helping more Americans who really need it.

2) He again wants the medical industry regulated at the state level and wants to reform medicare so that those on it can continue to be on it, while we help the younger and newer generations but letting them opt out of it and be the frontrunners of new private medical system regulated by the states (much like car insurance). The elderly and the disabled will still be looked after, if not even better than before given that medicare will become a viable program again and will be accepted by more hospitals and doctors.(He would know, he was/is an OBGYN).

3) Again he wants this moved to the state level for operation, as it is easiest for the state government to realize the needs of various schools in their state. A school in southern Kansas may only need $100,000.00 in aid, while one up north needs $300,000.00 in aid. Wel the Fed would give both $200,000.00 because it is a fair split between the two, as the Fed HAS to do this to prevent bias on its part per state. However, the state government has no problem giving $300,000.00 to the north school and $100,000.00 to the southern one. Much better allocation of resources and now no school has an excess surplus OR defecit in their budgets; Winning! (lol I know)

4) He intends to do the same with the FSA as he does with education; give the money to the state governments and let them spread it amongst those who need it. However I do remember him mentioning that he wanted a special program for the federal government to offer those who have real solutions to global problems, or problems that affect the whole country, to get grants for this as it would benefit everyone and possibly create new economic markets.

I hope this does a little to convince you that Ron Paul is a 'real deal' politician who is hated by both parties because he is FOR the people and AGAINST the machine that is failing. There is a reason why this guy can get both Democrats and Republicans to AGREE and go to his side. This isn't "Hope and Change," this is a real American standing up for ALL americans, regardless of your affiliation; you are an American first, and everything else second. Every proud American citizen knows this...

Originally posted by Skewed

Originally posted by HueyvsRiley

1. What does Ron Paul plan on doing w/ the Low Income Communities/ Elderly? Since he wants to eliminate everything that helps them. What is he going to replace it with something else and what would that be? How would he be helping these people if he eliminates everything that helps them. What is the safety net for the poor and the elderly. How long would it take for his ideas to work.

As far as I understand he does not necessarily want to get rid of these things. He wants to get rid of it on a federal level and let the states have their own programs that are funded by the state that creates it. If a state should choose to setup a medicare program, go for it, but it will not get support from the federal government, as it should be.

2. Healthcare, If people don't have health care that would mean that a lot of people would be in danger. What is he going to do for the Sick people who can do nothing about their condition?

Leave it up to the states, as it should be.

3. What is he going to do about public education, teachers etc. If he wants little involvement with the government and the people what does this mean for the education of those who go to public schools. Is he going to leave it as it is. Is he going to make it better how?

Remove the federal programs, and leave it to the states, as it should be.

4. What is his stance on FSA (Federal Student Aid) if he's eliminating a lot of government help to the people. What does this mean for those who receive this help to get a higher education. Is he eliminating this also. Is he going to be making this better or worse.

Leave it to the states, not the feds, as it should be.

This is a great answer to his questions. Pretty much, summed up, he wants to tear down most things relating to the feds. All of these programs that seem scary to live without would be handled by the state. Not only can they do it, but they would do it even better and in a manner more fitting to the local populace.

I did want to speak to the OP's question about his comment about the 1964 Civil Rights act. That act included some very necessary things but had a few unconstitutional things sprinkled in there, as well. He states several times that he would have voted to eliminate the Jim Crow laws (which were the sources of segregation) but the act also infringed on personal property rights, as well.

If that were voted down, there would have been a new version going through legislation just taking down the Jim Crow laws, which would have been awesome. He wanted those laws eliminated just like everybody else, he just didn't want to do it the wrong way.

He is a strict individualist and, as he said, there is no room for racism in that. He also subscribes to many of MLK's philosophies in regards to Civil Rights. That's the key word: "rights". Give rights but take none away. 1964 act, while it did good, also took away rights. You don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water, dig?

here is his net site ronpaulnews.net... for it says like it is with out the double speak that MSM tries to spin in, just plain old "how it is" and then his supporter's web site www.ronpaul.com... and then if you want to get it from the horse mouth paul.house.gov... thought this might help for Ron does seem to the best one for the next pres, just my view.

Ron Paul wants people to live.


Our current economic model to keep the Empire going relies on evil things to be done to generate revenue to hand out to people.

Say for example have the FDA cease to regulate Class II medical devices as they are supposed to and just hand out paperwork to approve everything without clinical trials first to prove safety. This creates jobs, puts money into the economy, and surgeons and other people with massive debt for their student loans can pay off their bills.

The downside is Americans are being killed and disabled by procedures and medical devices....lots of stuff being used "off-label". Ahhh a few hundred thousand Americans being disabled and possibly tens of thousands being killed is acceptable if it generates Billions for the medical mafia, creates jobs, and keeps the Empire going.

All Ron Paul implies is he took a Hippocratic Oath as a Doctor and he doesn't support killing Americans to keep the economy going. Many Doctors right now broke their Hippocratic Oath.....greed and survival are more important right now.

Originally posted by HueyvsRiley

Correct again if i am wrong but from some research this is what i have gotten from Ron Paul and what he wants to do. He wants to eliminate medicare/medicaid and most government assistance, if not all of it and thus, cut spending. he wants to end the wars, bring troops home from abroad and cut military spending substantially as well as legalize all drugs and leave people alone. he also wants eliminate much of the bureaucracy and "departments of". Which probably means he would like things to sort of go back to times of before in a sense.

What would be wrong about going back to the times of before? Fact is, the Department of Education was founded in 1979-1980. Since that time, test scores for our students in Public Schools have dropped dramatically. Medicare was founded in 1969. Since that time, healthcare cost have exploded. What is wrong with bringing our Military home? I personally do not see what the point is in making and funding permanent military bases around the globe. WW2 was over in the 1940's...so why do we still have troops in Japan and Germany? Both those nations have their own Military, both those nations are capable of protecting themselves. The US being there is what is known as Nation Building, and it is costing us an awful lot of money that we simply do not have.

A lot of attention has been given to Ron Paul's views on the drugs. I do not think Ron Paul would "legalize" all drugs, though he does admit that he would like to see drugs legalized. It is my understanding that what he wants to do is "decriminalize" drugs and leave it up to the States as to weather or not drugs should be legal. The fact is we are already seeing such things at the State level, however the Federal Government then comes in and overrides the State. Places like California, Oregon, Washington State, Arizona, Colorado have all passed legislation regarding marijuana making it legal in some form or another. Weather it be personal use or Medical use. Many of those same states have also seen the Federal Government then come in, raid the places where it is sold, arrest everyone, and completely ignore the law of the State and choose to enforce the law of the Federal Government.

I could go on and on and on when it comes to US Drug Policy but the facts speak for themselves. Fact is we call the US the "Land of the Free" but we have imprisoned more of our population than any other country, largely due to drug policy.

1. What does Ron Paul plan on doing w/ the Low Income Communities/ Elderly? Since he wants to eliminate everything that helps them. What is he going to replace it with something else and what would that be? How would he be helping these people if he eliminates everything that helps them. What is the safety net for the poor and the elderly. How long would it take for his ideas to work.

I think you are thinking along the lines of waking up one day and these programs will be gone. That is not the case, his plan is to phase them out. So nothing would happen to the elderly or those who have become dependent on the Federal Government to take care of them.

2. Healthcare, If people don't have health care that would mean that a lot of people would be in danger. What is he going to do for the Sick people who can do nothing about their condition?

By your own admission people would be in danger without health care.... fact is most people do not have health care as it is. I can tell you why I do not have health insurance... because I do not get hurt or sick very often. I do not run to the doctor for every cold, cough, or sniffle. So by paying a monthly premium I would actually be losing money. Much like car insurance.. you can pay for years before you actually need it. I have had 1 car accident in 10 years. I have been paying $150.00 per month for auto insurance. So that would be a total cost of $1800.00 per year. After paying for 10 years that comes to a total of $18,000.00. Now I did have one accident... the total cost of repairing the vehicle I hit was $500.00. There was no medical expenses and my vehicle I was forced to eat the cost on cause I carried Liability Insurance only. So after paying out $18,000 dollars over 10 years, the insurance company spent $500, kept the rest and I got to buy another car out of pocket. So let me ask you.... how much does insurance really help me?

3. What is he going to do about public education, teachers etc. If he wants little involvement with the government and the people what does this mean for the education of those who go to public schools. Is he going to leave it as it is. Is he going to make it better how?

What it would mean for education is that people just may be able to go to public schools based on the performance of the school and not based on where you live. What it means is that teachers will be able to actually teach instead of following the Government's curriculum and being told what to teach and how to teach it. Since the Department of Education has been founded in 1980 test scores overall have plummeted. Our students have gotten dumber. Drop out rates have increased. In many other countries, parents choose what school their children go to. The schools get paid by the parents, so the school makes more money by having more students. This creates competition between the schools to get students to attend their school. How do you get the students? By providing the best education possible. So schools are forced by the market to do well and educate. If you have a choice... are you going to send your child to the worst school or the best school? Instead here in the US we are told what school to attend based on our zip code and where we live. There is no competition. There is no incentive for the school to do it's job. No matter how poorly the school does at educating students, they will always get more students.

4. What is his stance on FSA (Federal Student Aid) if he's eliminating a lot of government help to the people. What does this mean for those who receive this help to get a higher education. Is he eliminating this also. Is he going to be making this better or worse.

I do not know what his stance is on the FSA, but no one can deny that the cost of receiving this "higher education" is outrageous. You basically go thousands of dollars into debt and you still have no guarantee that you will have a job for your efforts.

Thank you everyone who's been respectful and giving a more broad insight understand this. I am looking through all of them, and they all sound great.

and when i said healthcare i meant like Medicare and things like that. But all of you made it clear for me to understand that the states should be taking care of that and not the government.

I grew up to learn that the Republicans are the bad apple. Why is Ron Paul w/ the "bad apple" (Republicans). Why do i hear he would not be supported by this party.

The State can not help someone without hurting someone first.

The State has nothing of its own, produces nothing of its own, and keeps much of what it takes for itself.

The State is predicated on violence and coercion.

Violence and coercion are always wrong.

The State should not be able to do anything you or I may not do.

One more thing what are his ideals on Police, Police Brutality, Corruption. How would he stop that.



EDIT: Watching the interviews About Drugs.

reply to post by HueyvsRiley


Look into Ayn Rand and her philosophy. Seems Ron Paul liked her so much he named his kid fter her.

en.wikipedia.org...

But don't forget there is a warmonger past to Ron Paul in South and Central America befor the Bay of Pigs. He was involed in covert over throws of governments.

Heres Rand Paul trying to deny where his name from, but still can't deny him and his dad praise her.

reply to post by HueyvsRiley


Do you do drugs? Why not? Because they are currently illegal or out of personal choice alone? Just because people do not do crack now does not mean they will pick up the habit just because they make it legal. Alcohol is legal and I do not drink. Cigarettes are legal, but many do not smoke.

He believes that people have the choice to do what they will with their bodies, right or wrong. As a society, we must accept that, but we do not have to agree with it. Throwing people in jail because they are addicted is not the answer.

reply to post by JBA2848

Look into Ayn Rand and her philosophy. Seems Ron Paul liked her so much he named his kid fter her.

Dis INFO. His son's name is Randell

Originally posted by HueyvsRiley
Thank you everyone who's been respectful and giving a more broad insight understand this. I am looking through all of them, and they all sound great.

and when i said healthcare i meant like Medicare and things like that. But all of you made it clear for me to understand that the states should be taking care of that and not the government.

I grew up to learn that the Republicans are the bad apple. Why is Ron Paul w/ the "bad apple" (Republicans). Why do i hear he would not be supported by this party.

edit on 19-5-2011 by HueyvsRiley because: (no reason given)

He really is not supported by the Republican Party. Cynthia McKinney was a Democrat who was also not very much supported by her own party. This is what happens when you do not tow party lines and instead put the people and individuals above "The Party".

Fact is both Parties are corrupt and the only ones who get the support of their individual Parties you can bet your life are corrupt as well. That is how they get the nomination from their party. It is bought and paid for by the US Taxpayer in the form of tax cuts, policy that favors the corporations, Government contracts, etc etc.

Wow, didn't take long for the disinfo puppet popped in did it? Spewing crap they have no proof of as usual. Great job summarizing it to everyone else, there is not nothing really more than I can add.

reply to post by HueyvsRiley


The same way he intends to root out and destroy other corruption in the government, remove the ridiculous mandates (such as ticket quotas) and create new by laws that protect the American individual. He believes that when we as a society are given more decision power the whole country benefits. Think about it this way, if the police no longer had to arrest drug dealers/smugglers because drugs are legal and regulated, then the percentage of situations in which an officer could be in harms way would drop dramatically. Highway shootings would be less because there would be no more drug trafficing, and most mafias/gangs that rely on drug money to exist will simply dissappear because there is no business in it. Also, just like the FED Ron would push states to have limiting laws for officers, meaning they cannot do this and that without first satisfying this requirement. I believe a lot of the police brutality will end simply because many offciers would be less threatended in the line of duty. Needless to say, legalizing drugs would likely cause a massive decline in violent crimes nationwide. That is the idea. Less violent crime, less chance of an officer getting into a scuffle or being injured. I'm all for it.

As for police abuse, not sure but going by his track record I would think extremely stiff penalties for those who violate their positions of authority, like permanent loss of a job without chance of reinstatement. Just an idea.

reply to post by HueyvsRiley

I grew up to learn that the Republicans are the bad apple. Why is Ron Paul w/ the "bad apple" (Republicans). Why do i hear he would not be supported by this party.

Long story short, today's republicans aren't want they used to be. If Misoir finds your thread, I'm sure you'll get a great breakdown of the Old Right (basically what Ron Paul represents) as compared to today's republican.

They've simply moved pretty far from their roots of small government, low taxes, non-interventionism, and self responsiblity. Ron Paul is basically one of the few republicans remaining in the party, not vice versa.

The reason he remains in it is that he's true to its roots even though it might not be, and there is also a electoral angle - as he's covered before, trying to do anything with a presidency from a third-party standpoint is more or less doomed to failure, likely even if you've got a ridiculous amount of money to play with (and Ron's doing well, but nowhere near THAT well).

Anyway, if you're interested, he's got a great article here over at Young Americans for Liberty setting expectations about how he views his presidency, and I also started a thread on it that's linked in my signature at the bottom of this post.

Take care.