Politics The Marginalization of Ron Paul (or How Media Plays Favorites)

ron paul gave free healthcare to people that couldn't afford it because he took the hippocratic oath. he treated everyone and they paid by a drop box if they could afford it. people forget that this is the way healthcare was delivered before government intervention. he quit his practice because government became too intrusive and forced him to deal with medicare/medicaid.

 

I have seen that reported, but have never seen Paul say it himself. Recently he said, “I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of ‘em, we never turned anyone away from the hospitals.”

This was 50 years ago and having religious hospitals take on the cost of basic services for the poor was admirable. Today, the costs, which are much higher, are passed on through higher premiums for everyone else. And, neither hospitals nor physicians are in the position to take on long-term cancer treatments, the cost of stroke treatment/rehabilitation, other debilitating diseases, etc. more common in the elderly and where the cost runs into the $tens of millions (or more) on a per patient basis. Without affordable health care for seniors, which would not be available in the free market because it is not profitable, someone has to pay those $millions.
--- merged: Oct 14, 2011 3:17 AM ---
Even beyond the issue of health care, there is a reason why there has never been a libertarian economic/political system anywhere in the world since the industrial revolution or the days of the robber barons.

And it is not because of some vast left wing conspiracy, but the fact that such a system has never been supported by more than 10-15 percent of the population in any industrialized country because most recognize that such a system benefits the few at the top and does not provide the greatest opportunity or the greatest protection for the average worker or the country's economic prosperity and social responsibility as a whole.

We certainly need to take a hard look at the growing federal debt and how to control costs, but eliminating the federal income tax completely and removing the federal government from our lives completely is certainly not the answer and will result in greater income disparity and far more harm that good.

*cough* *cough* (breathing the air after Paul's proposal to eliminate the EPA and all federal environmental regulations).

 

Ok, let's look more closely at this comment, as you claim we are not responding directly to your views.

Let's say Ron Paul gets elected. Spring forward to June 2012. We have eliminated the federal income tax and now have a consumer flat tax. Realistically, it is difficult to imagine that the jobs situation and the housing market will have improved by then so we are basically looking at introducing this flat tax into an economic environment similar to where we are now.

June 2012
Consumption of goods and services still drives manufacturing and production.
Congress approves budgets based on estimated consumer tax revenues (maybe sticking fingers in wind)
The largest consumer base is still the middle class.
The middle class continues to decline as their income/wealth decreases through wage stagnation, unemployment, home foreclosure, property devaluation, rising health costs, pension and benefit losses, etc. On top of that, consumers are now paying 25% in taxes on the goods and services they do consume.
The largest consumer base is forced further into consuming less and less.
In a consumer flat tax economy the likelihood of a major shortfall in the budgets is likely, unless estimates are so low they ought not even bother making budgets.
We are wading in even deeper shit than we were before the flat tax.

If you can illustrate a different outcome, I would be glad to see it.

 

Here's the hard numbers of Ron Paul's full economic plan for America. His entire strategy is laid out in this link:

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/

 

all i can say is wow. do any of the other candidates break things down even close to what he has done? love him or hate him he has proved time and time again to be a man of his word. he vows to abolish the TSA naked body scanner pedophile molestors, corporate subsidies, foreign aid, foreign wars, and return spending to 2006 levels.

keeps benefits to seniors and veterans while allowing those of us who see the entitlements as ponzi schemes to opt out. he wants to cut congressional travel and set the presidents salary at the median income of the US.

why do people still hate him? why would any of the other republican candidates be better? not even obama is willing to end the wars or stop the tsa/police state.

 

Wow is right. I dont hate him; I think his policies are extreme and not in the best interest of the American people.

Eliminating Dept of Energy (so much for government investment in R&D and regulating oil drilling ), Dept of Interior (so much for a national park system or regulating mining, fracking, etc), Dept of Commerce (so much for trade deals to protect American business interests) , HUD (screw the elderly and poor who might need short term home heating assistance next winter...), Dept of Education (so much for providing some level of funding equity across the states).

Cut EPA budget by 1/3 (oh well, let polluters regulate themselves). Eliminate all federal R&D (right, that will make the US more competitive in a global economy).

Lower permanent corporate tax rate, eliminate capital gains tax, and make permanent the Bush tax rates on top wage earners at a cost of $3 trillion (or more) over the next 10 years. More supply side, trickle down economics that doesnt work. How does that contribute to debt reduction?

Entitlement ponzi schemes? -- inane characterizations that do not contribute to discussion on how these programs should be fixed, not eliminated.

I wont go into other of his more extreme positions or wildly exaggerated statements based on a 19th century interpretation of the Constitution.

There is a reason why Paul cannot get beyond a 10% threshold of support. The same reason why libertarians have never represented anything beyond a similarly small minority (albeit loud) view.

 

Why don't we just turn Texas over to Ron Paul to use as his own experimental country for a while? All of his followers could live in his Libertarian utopia and play by his rules. Theory is one thing. Let's see if might actually work in the real world.

No fair taking advantage of any federally supported systems, either. (You're on your own, which is pretty much the libertarian ideology).

 

Given that Paul's supporters are overwhelmingly male (and young), there are gonna be some restless cowboys in the sovereign Paulist nation.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/donordemCID.php?cycle=2012&id=N00005906

 

Maybe they can sneak some senoritas in over their border.
--- merged: Oct 18, 2011 9:30 PM ---

So, he agrees with free healthcare for those who can't afford it. Great, maybe I should vote for him after all.

 

First off, this wouldn't work because the population of Texas would quickly increase to 150+ million. Secondly, what's wrong with trying something new? Our current economic system full of regulations, bureaucracies and taxes has obviously failed the people and plagued us with insurmountable debt and increasing poverty. So what's the harm in instituting a more Constitutional system?

 

Paul isn't the only Republican candidate pushing for smaller government, lower taxes and less corporate regulations, in fact all of the front runners are. A lot of ill-informed people mistakenly think that Paul's policies are extreme, but we've had plenty of Presidents in the past 40 years who pushed for and achieved less bureaucracies, less taxes and less corporate regulation. Unfortunately the liberal trend swept in which has lead to the current economic state of affairs. Hopefully the American people will realize what a mistake Obama was as well as the majority of politicians in his party and they will choose to empower a new government run by people who believe in personal freedom and the Constitution.

 

What do you mean by a more Constitutional system? Most of the Constitution is fairly clear and rule bound - read it and you will see no disparity between what the Constitution dictates and what is done. There are some areas within the articles of the Constitution and it's amendments which are open to interpretation. For instance:

Article I, Section 8 -

Note that it does not state by which method taxes are to be collected. A flat tax is no more Constitutional than income tax.

Ron Paul's interpretation of these areas is only one interpretation - neither more nor less constitutional than any other interpretation.

 

Liberal thought has put this nation on a slow and steady course away from the Constitution and intentions of our founding fathers towards a country of big government, godlessness, and global integration.
--- merged: Oct 19, 2011 2:30 AM ---

I believe the Federal government's forced taxation of the people to pay for socialist systems such as well fare as well as its taxation to bailout corrupt banks is completely unconstitutional.

 

Please point me to the article/section/amendment of the constitution which expressly prevents such measures.

 

Here ya go, I hope this is pointed enough for you:

http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/constitution.html

 

In fact, the framers of the Constitution were split on the meaning of the General Welfare clause. Two of the leading voices, and principal authors of the Federalist Papers, were Madison, who was of the opinion that spending had to be tied to one of the enumerated powers and Hamilton, who suggested a broader interpretation of spending for the general welfare. They, along with most of the framers agreed that the provision establishing the federal judiciary would be the ultimate arbitrator of this issue and any future interpretation of the Constitution in general.

Of course, those strict Constitutionalists, dont accept the clearly delineated Constitutional role of the federal judiciary as arbitrator when the Court issues an interpretation that is counter to their ideology.

Ron Paul's interpretation is no more valid than those who hold an opposing view. His arrogance, along with many on the right that he/they knew the framers intent, is what sets him/them apart from most objective Constitutional scholars (as opposed to the unnamed gopcapitalist in the above link)