Can Someone explain something to me (Ron Paul Related)

reply to post by HueyvsRiley

What is the safety net for the poor and the elderly.

Its not the role of the government to provide any " safety " net for anyone. Look at the Social Security. When it was enacted, it was suggested to be what we know as 401k's of today. A retirement program. Look where that ended up! Soon they will start borrowing peoples money from within the 401k field.

Healthcare, If people don't have health care that would mean that a lot of people would be in danger.

No where in Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution, give any authority to dictate what a business owner must provide to its employees. And its not the role of the government to provide any provisions not authorized by the Constitution.

What is he going to do about public education, teachers etc.

He wants to remove the government intervention practice, and give the power back to the teachers, and in a sense, they can go back to teaching.

What is his stance on FSA (Federal Student Aid) if he's eliminating a lot of government help to the people.

He wants to eradicate Unconstitutional social welfare programs. Student loans are not defined as a welfare program. Student loan, ( in this case all loans ), are borrowed money with the intent of repayment. Where as those on social welfare have no intentions of paying anything back, and are simply looking for more handouts.

www.govtrack.us...

ETA: Ron Paul believes that the rights of the people are dictated by the will of the state and people combined. Not the federal government. As noted in the 10th:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

www.usconstitution.net...

Once again thank you to everyone and since i'm getting more information. I came in here and i knew it that i most likely wasn't 100 percent sure on what was going on w/ this guy and w/ a lil bit of research i wasn't fond of his ideals on govt. assistance and sorts. I see where he stands and I'm kind of liking it, but to truly support it i really need to be 100 percent sure of what is he doing and who he is to make a final judgement.



Now at 2:10 where he talks about People who are born from Immigrants in the United States. Does that mean he is going revoke their citizenship, maybe i didn't understand correctly or got way ahead of my self but can someone explain this to me and get me more information on this.

I would like to hear more information on his Immigrant stance. Can someone please summarize his stance on Immigrant laws. Is he going to also deport those who were here w/ their parents and already made a life here and been going to school etc. for a long time.

I liked the answers to my question about FSA. But i don't think i got answered what I wanted to be answered. So i will give a scenario and you would provide me w/ info on how would it affect me if Ron Paul became president.

I an 18 year old about to go to college and apply for FAFSA because i obviously cannot pay for college my self neither can my parent. I get a Pell Grant which in most cases you do not have to pay back. Now if Ron Paul became president and he changed everything how would i be able to go to college? Is my state going to pay for my college tuition. How does this work in my scenario.

reply to post by HueyvsRiley


Well there is a very good chance that you won't have to worry about your loan as Ron Paul will only be able to get the ball rolling on these changes in his first term if he wins. Nothing happens quickly in government, and he would still have to fight congress and the senate to get his visions enacted and begin to undo this monstrosity. However, once it does change, yes your state would be the provider of your college loans. Don't forget that smaller fed gov. will likely draw more business back to the US. Many big businesses have college programs to support younger generations to become good candidates for their business. Monsanto, Boeing, AB, all these big boys have scholarship programs for college students. Monsanto has a great one that actually leads you to an entry level position witht he company. You should check out businesses that are in the field you want, wish someone had told me that when I went to school.

Remember, the private industry is ALWAYS better for the little guy when handling social issues, it is flexible and much more apt to accomodate everyone who works for the help. Golden rule, the private industry helps those who work hard, government helps those who cannot. (disabled) Its the lazy and entitled masses that will scream foul if Ron gets the presidency, not those who truly need help.

Some more dis info I guess.
Rand Paul quoting Ayn Rand.


Now this I believe would relate to your question.
How long before Rand Paul and Ron Paul are quoting from this book by Ayn Rand.
Ayn Rand – THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS
marsexxx.com...
Kind of goes along with the Republicans new idea of take from the middle and lower class and reward the rich. They think the rich have the right to be Selfish and if others lose out its just because they were not good enough.

And how about Ron Paul saying how much he liked her. He says her book is number two in the world? Maybe in Ron and Rand's eyes.



And how about Glenn Beck using her book as a reference to how big a bill is.


www.atlassociety.org...

Objectivism is the philosophy founded by Ayn Rand (1905–1982), the author of Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, The Virtue of Selfishness, and other works. It is a philosophy of reason, individualism, respect for achievement, and freedom.

And don't forget she thinks religion is whats wrong with America and the Conservatives.


But I guess thats just the Russian in her. She hated growing up in Russia but she just can't give it all up.
That sounds familiar. Who else Started in Russia but says they hate Russia but can't give up the ideas they learned there?

Orly Taitz queen of the birthers.
Fred C. Koch founder of Koch Industries.

And Atlas Shrugged the mind control trailer.

reply to post by JBA2848


See now I'm getting sidetracked lol. Is she suppose to represent something good or bad when it comes to Ron Paul.

reply to post by HueyvsRiley


Read some of the stuff about Objectivists who follow her teachings.

en.wikipedia.org...(Ayn_Rand)

Based on their political philosophy, Objectivists do not consistently follow typical "conservative" and "liberal" political positions. Rand advocated the right to legal abortion.[82] She opposed involuntary military conscription (the "draft")[83] and any form of censorship, including legal restrictions on pornography.[84] Rand opposed racism, and any legal application of racism, and she considered affirmative action to be an example of legal racism.[85] As a life-long atheist Rand rejected organized religion and specifically Christianity, which she decreed "the best kindergarten of communism possible."[86] More recent Objectivists have argued that religion is incompatible with American ideals, and the Christian right poses a threat to individual rights.[87] Objectivists have argued against faith-based initiatives,[88] displaying religious symbols in government facilities,[89] and the teaching of "intelligent design" in public schools.[90] Objectivists have opposed the environmentalist movement as being hostile to technology and, therefore, to humanity itself.[91] Objectivists have also opposed a number of government activities commonly supported by both liberals and conservatives, including antitrust laws,[92] public education,[93] and child labor laws.[94]

"oppose public education"

reply to post by JBA2848


Well I oppose public education as it is now myself.... We were once one of the best educated countries in the world, not anymore.... Gee I wonder why?

What you are doing is personal attacks, and it is definitely one of the things wrong with politics these days....
The man believes in the constitutional government, the way it is supposed to be, and has a long voting record to prove it. How many candidates do you know who can say that. No one looks at that, too much time, too complicated. If people took the time to research they would have seen "change" really meant "follow in bush's footsteps"

Originally posted by HueyvsRiley
Correct me if i am wrong and i am open to hear everyone's views. from the little time i've had spend researching this guy and what he wants to do. It is to my understanding that this guy wants this country to be on some survival of the fittest #.

For the most part he wants to limit the government to what is in the constitution.

The ppl that like the current mountain of hand outs will never vote this man in,
we got here slowly and going back will have to be slow or bloody via civil war.

I think civil war 2 is coming, but that is another story.

He thinks taxing raw goods from raw material and every step of the way makes the
end product taxed each step of 10 steps or more so that the true tax burden is more like 80%,
which is the case for a set of tires and many other items.

He thinks 700+ bases in 130+ countries is far too many.

He thinks paying ppl to sit at home and do nothing is a bad idea.

He thinks community gardens would be better than 45 million ppl on food stamps.

The only thing that i kind of like about him is that he is anti war. He also believes the government should not be involved w/ anything nonetheless help anyone. I disagree i think the government should be involved in some ways so that they can help those who can't help them selves such as the poor and the elderly.

He thinks the bigger the government gets the more corrupt it gets, and if you read
some history books you will find that view is right close to 100% of the time.

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.

He does want to eliminate large sections of the government, especially those that
have been shown to do a poor job.

I think a Co-op like farmers use would work for medical, it would eliminate the greedy
corporate HMO's and shareholder feeding frenzy that current parasitically feeds
off the system.

A working not for profit insurance system already exists for home and auto insurance
for former veterans, it is USAA insurance, as a vet I am a member an no other insurance
comes close on price or on service as far as I have seen.

Most ppl in the US will not like what Ron Paul wants to do, not until the country
has totally collapsed.

Also can some one please explain why wouldn't he support the Civil Rights Acts from their understanding and what he said.

He thinks it goes too far in providing unequal rights to ppl based on race
even if they are not as qualified as someone who happens to be white.

Example a B+ student is not allowed to enroll at a University with federal
funding if they are white, and they can find a minority to take their place
even if the minority student has a lower GPA.

This same method is applied to jobs as well.

Keep in mind I am a Native American.

Now i have some interesting questions i would like people to try their best to answer on an unbaised perspective and provide facts and sources.

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 his plan was to slowly phase it out over time, and to be honest his plans
would never make it thru the house and senate.

As we were warned the country would go broke once we learned we could
vote ourselves "goodies" from the treasury.

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?

Millions have not had health care for many many years, if we cut back a lot of the other
aspects of government this might be doable, but it is outside the scope of what was
outlined for the government to do. I think it would be great, but for those who kick back
and do not contribute it would just drag the system down. It is like you having to pay
for someones lung cancer treatment who was a smoker for 20 years.

He had money for the cigarettes for slow suicide, but no money for the cure.

I don't think you should have to pay for someone to smoke or drink themselves to death.

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?

The department of education would be abolished, and as Charlotte Iserbyt has shown
the deliberate dumbing down of America has been deliberate.

I do not know what a good replacement for it would be, but the current system uses
more money per capita then any other nation on earth, but does not even place in
the top 10 globally.

His belief is the ppl would be better off with their own money instead of paying to fund
a broken system that gives poor results for a high price.

I am a fan of the idea of an internet education system based on moodle.

Moodle stats

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 think he believes in lowering taxes as much as possible, and letting
the ppl keep their money and shrinking the government as much as possible.

He used to be on the Libertarian ticket.

I think all socialism programs would be phased out under him if it was in his power.

As I said before thou, the senate and the house would never go along with him,
so he'd be a lame duck for the most part.

Can someone try to their best of their ability to answer these question in a unbiased way and provide facts and sources to support their claims i will highly appreciate this.

His way of thinking is not supported by most Americans so I do not
expect ppl to want to try his way til the current paradigm has failed
fully utterly and irrevocably, and you can bet that is on the way and
both parties are to blame for different reasons.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts has said the system is not getting fixed, I agree.

The Welfare/Warfare paradigm will collapse under its own corruption,
cronyism, deception, and bloat.

So we will not get Ron Paul because a majority of ppl in this country
think my wallet is their wallet when they feel like it.

reply to post by HueyvsRiley


And here is another part that is confusing. But is the same ideas that Ron Paul has and promotes.

en.wikipedia.org...:_The_Unknown_Ideal

Rand applies her philosophy of Objectivism to the subject of politics. When Rand talks of capitalism, she means laissez-faire capitalism, in which there is a complete separation of state and economics "in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of church and state." Rand says, "Objectivists are not 'conservatives'. We are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish."

Rand says that most people do not know what capitalism is, which is why it is "the unknown ideal."

[edit] What is capitalism?As understood by Rand, capitalism is the system that emerges among a group of free individuals, each applying time and reason to sustain his or her own life, each the owner of the means to do so, freely trading among themselves.

Rand regarded a mixed economy as a dangerous and unstable combination of freedom and controls which tends to develop into ever increasing statism.

[edit] Reason and valuesRand held capitalism to be the only moral social system, that is, one consistent with an objective theory of value and ethical individualism. The creation of wealth, according to Rand, is a fusion of mind and matter, and she argued that reason is the most fundamental tool of survival for human beings. However, rational thought is rendered inoperative under conditions of compulsion, coercion or, as she puts it, the initiation of physical force. Whether it is the force of an armed robber or the force of a law, an actor's own judgment is rendered irrelevant to his actions by a threat of force, compelling him to act on the judgment or will of another, thus neutralizing the source of wealth and survival itself. Only voluntary trade can ensure that human interaction is mutually beneficial, and an analysis of history shows that only economic and political freedom has worked to create significant growth and economic development, precisely by liberating the rational faculties of ever wider numbers of individuals, according to Rand.

[edit] Individual rightsIn its most basic form, the right to life (as understood by Rand) is the right of each human to do any and all activities necessary to sustain his or her own life. Rand further argued that one's selfish interests can never rationally entail the use of physical force or violence against the person or the property of another. Rand saw humans as thriving only as independent beings, reason being a faculty of the individual, with each freely expending his own time, effort and reason to sustain his own life.

Rand suggested that through the division of labor, specialization and voluntary trade, other people are of enormous value to an individual. Moreover, knowledge, skills and interests vary from human to human. One person may be better at shaping flint into arrowheads, another may have acquired the skill to turn mud into pottery. If the first wants a pot to cook in, he may trade an arrowhead for a pot. The central feature of free trade is that each participant judges that he or she has gained from the transaction.

When physical force is banned, according to Rand, persuasion alone can organize or coordinate human activity, and, consequently, the use of reason is both liberated and rewarded. The technological innovation which characterizes capitalist systems is thus directly related to conditions of economic freedom. A producer profits and becomes wealthy only by satisfying the voluntary choices of other market participants and in direct proportion to the value those participants find in transactions with that producer.

In this way, individuals who themselves could have never invented, for example, the light bulb or the steam engine can none the less benefit from the creativity of others – but this can be only ensured when both the innovator and the consumer are free to refuse the proposed trade. This, according to Rand, is the mechanism behind America's rapid economic development, its liberation of human reason.

Freedom being the primary condition for the practical use of reason, the role of government in protecting individual rights is therefore fundamental, according to Rand, and it is equally fundamental that the government itself be limited to its role of protecting rights, for only by rendering all human interaction voluntary, i.e., free from the initiated coercion of criminals and laws, can the market operate to radically improve the lives of everyone. To the extent that it has been permitted to operate, this is what a free market has done, argued Rand.

Thus, she held, "a free mind and a free market are corollaries."

But how do you say pure capitalism is the way to go where every thing will be perfect. No cops to rule over you and no criminals to steal from you. How does that work? Capitalism will make crime disappear some how? And the barter and trade thing does not seem to really work unless your dirt poor and living off the land. Tradeing a home made arrow head for a clay pot that you made. Ok I guess that works. But what guy builds a car for me to trade a clay pot to him. He has to need a clay pot for something. Or who builds a computer in a neanderthal way of life. Except that way of thinking does work if you go back to the 1400's or earlier where you had the royal kings and knights and Lords of the land. And all the rst are just peasants who mean nothing and deserve nothing. Let them eat cake I tell ya.

reply to post by JBA2848

But how do you say pure capitalism is the way to go where every thing will be perfect. No cops to rule over you and no criminals to steal from you. How does that work? Capitalism will make crime disappear some how? And the barter and trade thing does not seem to really work unless your dirt poor and living off the land. Tradeing a home made arrow head for a clay pot that you made. Ok I guess that works. But what guy builds a car for me to trade a clay pot to him. He has to need a clay pot for something. Or who builds a computer in a neanderthal way of life. Except that way of thinking does work if you go back to the 1400's or earlier where you had the royal kings and knights and Lords of the land. And all the rst are just peasants who mean nothing and deserve nothing. Let them eat cake I tell ya.

He wants a monetary system, he just wants one that is controlled by the house and senate
not European billionaire pirates that bankrupt countries for fun and profit.

The federal reserve is as federal as federal express.

Look up andrew jackson and how he dealt with the banksters, he made the greenback.

The problem is if this happened, just like jackson they'd try to kill him.

I guess the problem is Ayn Rand/Ron Paul/Rand Paul have a thought of a Utopia if they can just get rid of everything. And they get this idea from Ayn Rand's fiction novels. Reminds me of Scientology based on L Ron Hubbard a science fiction writer.

reply to post by JBA2848


I do not agree with all of Ron or Rand Paul's views, but I am for smaller government.

I do not agree with a LOT of Ayn Rand, but some of her points are 100% correct in my books.

Robbing a hard working man so that a lazy man can live well is not just.

I do not speak of the pirate bankers as hard workers, they are scum.

I do not speak of giant corporate cartels and monopolies that treat workers
like livestock, they are scum too.

I think capitalism run amok is crap, and socialism is crap too.

I think liberty and freedom is the way it needs to be, and Co-ops exist outside the
government with government oversight and true total transparency.

Co-ops sound like communism, but they have existed here for decades and
work for farmers.

I am not saying it works for everything, but its something we can try to dig
ourselves out of the current hole this nation is in.

There is a lot more to this, but it isn't going to happen anyways, we are
headed for civil war 2 not a fix.

I remember a question i had, Ron Paul talks about having doctors just taking care of the people for free and churches taking care of the people. If they can pay then they pay, if they can't then they can't and the doctors would still attend them it's what he basically said.

IDK how would this work, but i don't think doctors would want to take care of people if they're not getting paid. They spend a lot of their life studying medicine to get paid nothing or almost anything. If they're not getting paid by the people who can't afford it then who are going to pay these doctors.

Originally posted by JBA2848
I guess the problem is Ayn Paul/Ron Paul/Rand Paul have a thought of a Utopia if they can just get rid of everything. And they get this idea from Ayn Paul's fiction novels. Reminds me of Scientology based on L Ron Hubbard a science fiction writer.

No plan works for all ppl, that is for sure, and I dare say we need to break new ground
as all the old stuff has results on view for anyone that can crack a history book.

We need to take what has worked in the past, and discard what has proven to be a failure.

Capitalism run amok doesn't work and creates a plutocrat merchant class that buys off
the government, socialism doesn't work because ppl just become unmotivated if they
can get all then need for free.

Giant government equals giant corruption thru all of human history.

Limited government is our best choice, and then deal with social issues via Co-ops
that are not for profit, but the workers get paid a prevailing wage adjusted for inflation.

Right now government payrolls are outpacing non government working class payrolls.

A teacher teaching basic math doesn't merit 100k+ a year.

A lot of this could be taught via the internet as I have mentioned before.

It could also be taught via public television and books.

For a lot of ppl public school has turned into more than free day care.

Originally posted by HueyvsRiley
I remember a question i had, Ron Paul talks about having doctors just taking care of the people for free and churches taking care of the people. If they can pay then they pay, if they can't then they can't and the doctors would still attend them it's what he basically said.

IDK how would this work, but i don't think doctors would want to take care of people if they're not getting paid. They spend a lot of their life studying medicine to get paid nothing or almost anything. If they're not getting paid by the people who can't afford it then who are going to pay these doctors.

Yeah, like I said, I do not agree with all the Ron has said, I think what will work is a
not for profit Co-op where the docs get paid, but a waiver is signed so you can't sue
them into oblivion if something goes wrong outside their control.

A jury trial would be in order for any malpractice.

Co-ops could solve most of our current giant government agencies that seem
like giant monetary blackholes.

But as I said early in reference to what smarter men than I have said, the system is
not going to get fixed because too much special interest is exerting power and money
to get it the way they want it.

Thus we continue down the road to civil war 2, just like most other nations before us.

My advice is get out of the way of what is coming and learn to hide well or
get pressed into service as fodder on the battlefield so that the status quo can
be maintained or some new power structure can be put in place that is likely
just as broken.

Thank you guys a lot for some of the good comments. I like ron paul and I learned a little more about him in this thread