dc_dux

My observations re, social security and the environment were based on polls. Most Americans do not want to end Social Security as it is presently structured nor do they want to shut down the EPA - both Ron Paul extreme positions.

While there havent been recent polls on Social Security, at the time Bush was proposing to "fix" Social Security by allowing workers to invest all or part of their current and future SS tax contribution in private investments instead (same as Ron Paul position), the polls at the time (2005) were clear:

Approve or disapprove of Bush plan:
- Associated Press/Ipsos poll: approve - 35%, disapprove - 60%
- CNN/Gallup poll: approve - 29%, disapprove - 62%
(many other polls have similar results on this question)

Or this, from a CBS/NY Times poll:
- On the whole, do you think it should or should not be the government's responsibility to provide a decent standard of living for the elderly
-- should - 80%, should not - 16%

- Do you think allowing individuals to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes on their own is a good idea or a bad idea?"
-- good idea - 45%, bad idea - 50%

NBC/Wall Street Journal poll:
- In general, do you think that it is a good idea or a bad idea to change the Social Security system to allow workers to invest their Social Security contributions in the stock market?
- good idea - 36%, bad idea - 56%

Social Security polls

I think its pretty clear that Americans dont want the Social Security system "fixed" that way.

Now as to the environment/EPA:
A recent Harris poll:

Do you think there is too much, too little, or about the right amount of government regulation and involvement in the area of environmental protection?"
-- too much - 21%, too little - 53%, about right - 21%

Other polls show the low perecentage of people who believe business can be trusted to protect the environment.

Environment polls

Do you see support here for Ron Paul's declaration that we dont need the EPA and we can rely on business to self-regulate.

And finally, a "partner in the international community" doesnt mean an interventionist foreign policy (asserting our "will" on the world like Bush), but it does mean participating in international efforts in promoting peace in places like the Middle East, engaging as part of an international response in worse case scenarios like the past genocide in the Balkans and presently in Sudan, and providing foreign aid (economic assistance) in areas facing severe economic deprivation and widespread death.

While Ron Paul may not be an "isolationist", he is a "non-interventionist" and opposed to all foreign aid and US participation in international response efforts, both military and economic.

More:
This response from a "supporter" attending a recent Ron Paul gathering in NH sums up RP's problem...:
...as people look beyond the surface talking points of "end the war", "shut down the IRS" and "return to (his concept of) the constitutional role of the federal government" and begin to understand what that means.....I suspect more and more are saying "really"?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire