Debate: Ron Paul and education/health care

Discussion in 'Politics' started by TomVols, Jun 7, 2007.

  1. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a serious inquiry here. There seems to be a lot of Paul supporters around. Paul seems to advocate a limited government, yet in the recent debate, he said (Interrupted by Wolf Blitzer, imagine that):
    Those of you who are familiar with his policies, I have this question: given the highlighted area above, and Paul's staments and his implied agreement with Maher that we need universal health care, how does this gel with a limited government framework?

    I honestly seek to understand here, not to quibble or start a Paul bashing or praise-fest.
     
  2. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ron Paul is starting to learn how to speak out of both sides of his mouth. He is a politician first, his convictions come second. The most important issue to me is still the fight against those who want to kill Americans. Electing a pacifist isnt going change their minds. It is only going to make their job easier. I am seriously concerned about the next election.
     
  4. Rufus_1611

    Rufus_1611
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,006
    Likes Received:
    0
  5. Bro. James Reed

    Bro. James Reed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    0
    I knew what he meant when he said it during the debate, but I wish he would have said it differently.

    He was referring back to the previous questions asked about healthcare and such, to which he was not asked to respond earlier.

    The Republican candidates don't seem to understand, if you want any kind of government programs for healthcare/education for children, stop spending all your money in Iraq. I don't agree with the government doing such here, but it seems contradictory to me for people to complain about not having enough money to spend, on anything (healthcare included) here, when we are spending so much elsewhere.

    The healthcare questions are on pages 20 and 21 of the transcript.
     
  6. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    4
    I think his approach of limited government, along with his immigration position would cure the health care system. We spend way, way too much on free health care for illegal aliens. A return to personal responsibility and non-interferance is what we need.

    http://www.theamericanresistance.com/issues/health_care.html

    Oh wait, that might be a "neocon" site.......:laugh: Sorry.
     
  7. Botfield

    Botfield
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Having looked at Paul's website, and at his ideas and policies, and history, I have to say that I think electing him would be a mistake. Why? Two main reasons:

    1. He is an isolationist. If America had remained isolationist during WWII Britain would have been overrun by the Nazis. I am not saying that America should be the world's policeman, or that it has to intervene in every dispute. But pulling up the drawbridge will only harm America in the long term.

    2. I think he is too old and too far from the centre for the American electorate. Hi idea to abolish the IRS and Income Tax, to reduce social security, to in effect, introduce a wholly libertarian state, simply won't work, and is too extreme for most Americans. While I agree in a smaller state and less taxation, Income Tax is there for a reason.

    Of course, as a Briton I have no vote, but as a big fan of the US, I want to see someone who is less of a libertarian in the White House.
     
  8. Bro. James Reed

    Bro. James Reed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're certainly entitled to your opinion, even if it is wrong.:laugh:

    Dr. Paul continually corrects this view of him during interviews. He is not an isolationist, but rather a non-interventionist. An isolationist wants nothing to do with any other country, but Dr. Paul supports trade agreements and mediation with other countries, as well as support (non-military) for those seeking democratic progress within non-democratic countries. The U.S. policy going into WWII was a good policy, in my opinion. We continued supplying countries (the Allied countries, that is) with needed goods and services in order to conduct their war. Had the U.S. been isolationist, such as Switzerland, England would have received no help in any form until we actually entered the war. We all know such was not the case.

    You may be right about the age issue. I do wish Dr. Paul was a few years younger, but he seems to be in very good health. He's only a year or so older than John McCain, yet McCain's age doesn't seem to be an issue with anyone. Plus, McCain's had more health problems in recent years than Dr. Paul.

    Most of Americans are not as "centered" in the spectrum as many would think. On social issues, probably more so than on fiscal issues. Most Americans do want smaller government, do hate the I.R.S., and do agree there is far too much corruption and pork-barrel spending in Washington. Those are (or used to be, anyway) right wing stances.

    You're right that making a completely libertarian state overnight would not work. Dr. Paul acknowledges such. This is something that is going to take time to wean Americans off of the bottle that politicians have let sit in their mouths for so many years. Getting started is the key. If Americans get used to the idea that the government will leave them alone and let them live their own lives with their own money, they might just begin to like it again. Once upon a time this country enjoyed that type of life.

    I don't agree with every view that Dr. Paul, or Libertarians in general, espouses. Yet, he understands better than any other candidate that this country was set up as a Constitutional Republic and we are not supposed to deviate from the Constitution. Regardless of what sounds good or what politicians think ought to be done, most government programs are contrary to the document they have sworn to abide by and protect. If they want to have the socialistic society that we currently have, they are supposed to follow the correct steps and amend the Constitution to allow such. Of course, the politicians have always known that to do such is an uphill climb they are not cut out for, so they just pass unConstitutional laws and hope no one notices. Unfortunately, the citizenry seems not to have noticed over the last 100 years or so, and now it seems natural to accept socialist laws while rejected what the founding father's wrote into our Constitution.

    I really don't care what the name of the next President is, but I want them to actually follow the Constitution. That necessitates that the President believe in the libertarian principle of Constitutional law.
     

Share This Page

Loading...