Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: United States: Election Time
Do you actually know what he wants exactly.
Well you probably say yes.
So, how do you like that:
Health care costs
Paul says that contrary to what most Americans believe, access to health care is not a right, but a good whose value should be determined by the free market.[236][237][238] In his view, government has no business in the delivery of health care. When government becomes involved, he says, costs rise and quality of care falls.[239][240][241]
Paul calls for the eventual elimination of Medicare (federally-funded health care for the elderly and disabled) and Medicaid (health care for the poor, jointly funded by the federal and state governments),[242][243] and he has been a staunch opponent of the Affordable Care Act health insurance reform law that was enacted in 2010.[244][240][245] He says that federally-funded healthcare is “unconstitutional” and that the costs of the programs are unsustainable and are bankrupting the government.
He has also called for the removal of all taxes on gold transactions.[63] He has repeatedly introduced the Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act since 1999,[64] to enable "America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold". He opposes dependency on paper fiat money, but also says that there "were some shortcomings of the gold standard of the 19th century ... because it was a fixed price and caused confusion." He argues that hard money, such as backed by gold or silver, would prevent monetary inflation (and, thus, would inhibit price inflation), but adds, "I wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money."
this is vague, and btw the gold standard, or fixing the money to gold, or the dollar (Bretton Woods) did not work once in history. We have to find new ways, to deal with the inflation and the economics I agree, but imo this is not the right one.
There are more things, but I am lazy.
Well you probably say yes.
So, how do you like that:
Health care costs
Paul says that contrary to what most Americans believe, access to health care is not a right, but a good whose value should be determined by the free market.[236][237][238] In his view, government has no business in the delivery of health care. When government becomes involved, he says, costs rise and quality of care falls.[239][240][241]
Paul calls for the eventual elimination of Medicare (federally-funded health care for the elderly and disabled) and Medicaid (health care for the poor, jointly funded by the federal and state governments),[242][243] and he has been a staunch opponent of the Affordable Care Act health insurance reform law that was enacted in 2010.[244][240][245] He says that federally-funded healthcare is “unconstitutional” and that the costs of the programs are unsustainable and are bankrupting the government.
He has also called for the removal of all taxes on gold transactions.[63] He has repeatedly introduced the Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act since 1999,[64] to enable "America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold". He opposes dependency on paper fiat money, but also says that there "were some shortcomings of the gold standard of the 19th century ... because it was a fixed price and caused confusion." He argues that hard money, such as backed by gold or silver, would prevent monetary inflation (and, thus, would inhibit price inflation), but adds, "I wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money."
this is vague, and btw the gold standard, or fixing the money to gold, or the dollar (Bretton Woods) did not work once in history. We have to find new ways, to deal with the inflation and the economics I agree, but imo this is not the right one.
There are more things, but I am lazy.
I know what he says. I don't agree on everything what he says. That's not the point though. I will never find somebody with whom I agree 100%. Look, the radical things he stands for (abolish public health care, get out of UN) would never get through the Congress. So Americans can chose now: do they want a more Europe-like America (vote Obama or Romney) or do they want an America of liberties (vote Paul)? I know what I would chose.
About the gold standard: in Bretton Woods, there was no free exchange market, as the currencies were fixed at the dollar. Using the example of the Bretton Woods system as a proof that the gold standard doesn't work is therefor not fair. The gold standard can work, but not in a Bretton Woods-like system.
Edit: another thing I like about Paul is his undamaged voting record. He never votes for laws that restrict the liberties of citizens (he voted as a republican against the patriot act (Obama has extended the patriot act) for instance). His libertarian purity.
(edited)
About the gold standard: in Bretton Woods, there was no free exchange market, as the currencies were fixed at the dollar. Using the example of the Bretton Woods system as a proof that the gold standard doesn't work is therefor not fair. The gold standard can work, but not in a Bretton Woods-like system.
Edit: another thing I like about Paul is his undamaged voting record. He never votes for laws that restrict the liberties of citizens (he voted as a republican against the patriot act (Obama has extended the patriot act) for instance). His libertarian purity.
(edited)
Well but these are important parts of his views. Of course it is barely probable to agree on everything but the main parts one should do so.
Liberty is important I fully agree, under Bush it went away and it also spirals down in Europe, indeed.
Bretton Woods was not meant as a proof by me, I think. It just shows that systems where the currency (-ies) are linked to a standard have flaws, and imo there has not been completely proven that it can work. And with all the flaws our current system has, why try something new (or old) that might not work? The gold, silver standard had major flaws as well when it was in use.
Liberty is important I fully agree, under Bush it went away and it also spirals down in Europe, indeed.
Bretton Woods was not meant as a proof by me, I think. It just shows that systems where the currency (-ies) are linked to a standard have flaws, and imo there has not been completely proven that it can work. And with all the flaws our current system has, why try something new (or old) that might not work? The gold, silver standard had major flaws as well when it was in use.
Liberty is important I fully agree, under Bush it went away and it also spirals down in Europe, indeed.
Taxes are a severe restriction of liberty. Some taxes are normal (because the government must provide certain public goods like the police, a legal system, public infrastructure and some public security). Everything above that is just legalized theft. Ron Paul wants to stop that theft, the others (from Obama to Santorum) don't.
Taxes are a severe restriction of liberty. Some taxes are normal (because the government must provide certain public goods like the police, a legal system, public infrastructure and some public security). Everything above that is just legalized theft. Ron Paul wants to stop that theft, the others (from Obama to Santorum) don't.
Funny how not many Americans are posting ;)
What we have today in the US and Europe concerning taxation laws is in some parts a big joke, that is true.
What I personally like to have (and that is where I am sure it makes sense) is a social security and system, free education, research + what you mentioned. Social security simply because in an industrialized, educated country noone should have not enough money to buy the basics. And the education simply because it is the money of the future you get back as a country in taxes.
What I personally like to have (and that is where I am sure it makes sense) is a social security and system, free education, research + what you mentioned. Social security simply because in an industrialized, educated country noone should have not enough money to buy the basics. And the education simply because it is the money of the future you get back as a country in taxes.
He is totally pro liberty, for the ones than can afford it. ;)
Libertarianism isn't just something for the rich guys. It's just the ideology that every human basically should be as free as possible. If that (libertarianism is for rich guys) were true, why don't the big companies support Ron Paul? Simple: because lobbying just doesn't work with Ron Paul. He votes libertarian, whatever money you're willing to pay him.
You are free to beleive whatever nonsense you want to believe, but it's downright idiotic to say it's not geared for rich guys. If you'd know what you're talking about, you'd know liberalism is designed with purpose to change the power from hereditary lords to those who 'earned' their place: the rich. Libertarianism isn't that much different, it's simply another word for the old fashioned liberalism.
If you'd know what you're talking about
Oh the irony.
(I use libertarianism because liberalism in continental Europe and liberalism in the Anglo-Saxon world is (or should be) quite different.)
I'm not going further into this with you, because I know you won't properly read what I write.
(edited)
Oh the irony.
(I use libertarianism because liberalism in continental Europe and liberalism in the Anglo-Saxon world is (or should be) quite different.)
I'm not going further into this with you, because I know you won't properly read what I write.
(edited)
I could care less what Libertarianism is, it is just an idea, a shadow in a wall that might be bigger or smaller depends on where the sun hits the wall, it's nothing, like communism, democracy or any other political-economical idea.
What I am talking about is Paul, a guy that deliberately wants to abolish public education and health care, a guy that said "if you want to avoid sexual harassment, just quit, unless there is physical abuse the state shouldn't be involved".
HIS ideas aim to make a bigger gap between the poor and the rich.
(edited)
What I am talking about is Paul, a guy that deliberately wants to abolish public education and health care, a guy that said "if you want to avoid sexual harassment, just quit, unless there is physical abuse the state shouldn't be involved".
HIS ideas aim to make a bigger gap between the poor and the rich.
(edited)
I could care less what Libertarianism is, it is just an idea, a shadow in a wall that might be bigger or smaller depends on where the sun hits the wall, it's nothing, like communism, democracy or any other political-economical idea.
It's an idea so it's nothing. A bit a dark way to see it, no?
HIS ideas aim to make a bigger gap between the poor and the rich.
You can say they would make the gap bigger (which is not necessarily a bad thing), but you cannot say the increase of that gap is the aim of his libertarian ideas. You can say that, but what you say would be nothing ;-)
I want the government out of my life. I don't want a nanny state saying what I can and can't do in every aspect of my life. That's the problem of collectivist ideologies: they always tend to a totalitarian (not necessarily authoritarian!) state.
It's an idea so it's nothing. A bit a dark way to see it, no?
HIS ideas aim to make a bigger gap between the poor and the rich.
You can say they would make the gap bigger (which is not necessarily a bad thing), but you cannot say the increase of that gap is the aim of his libertarian ideas. You can say that, but what you say would be nothing ;-)
I want the government out of my life. I don't want a nanny state saying what I can and can't do in every aspect of my life. That's the problem of collectivist ideologies: they always tend to a totalitarian (not necessarily authoritarian!) state.