16. what's so difficult...go directly to his website to learn, see and hear:

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/index.jhtml

gigi at 7:52AM on Jun 5th 2007

17. Removing the upper layer of bureaucracy in the federal government means that the states are individually and jointly free to be amazingly creative in dealing with all the issues that Phil raises. Dr Paul keeps asking the question "what should the federal government be doing?" and his answer is "a lot less", because he knows that what it is best at is creating unmanageable bureaucracies (think FEMA; we all know how incredibly effective it was in dealing with Katrina). Many states now are in fact not waiting for the federal government to deal with pollution, global warming, health care, and rightly so. Dr Paul wants to get the federal government off the backs of the states. And as for "big business", my greatest fear is the way big business uses the government FOR ITS OWN ENDS. You talk as if the government has real control over business, when it is the other way around. Who do you think is financing the incredibly expensive campaigns being waged by all the candidates other that Dr Paul. If he can't raise money like they do, it's because he won't be bought by big business.

Dwight at 8:38AM on Jun 5th 2007

18. Whatever happened to that "Ask not what your country can do for you....." philosophy, anyway? We were so strong then!

Ron Paul does not believe in much of anything National. If you're a supporter of the failed entitlement program experiment, then you're right, he's not your guy.

I don't understand how anybody can look at the pictures of Walter Reid, and think that the government will be a great health care provider.

Ron Paul would allow each state to develop their own plans, so we wouldn't be stuck with one huge inefficient plan, managed by distant politicians. Didn't you hear Washington say they were "surprised" about the resistance to the immigration bill? As a person with a chronic illness, I have to say that having them be deaf to my current and future health needs frightens me far more than simply being without insurance.

Agree or not, he'll never pander to the popular vote. If you want to know about how his plans will work, instead of just insisting they'll fail, then I suggest starting at the RonPaulLibrary.com. Notice his positions haven't changed, and the topics are still relevant.

Angela Thornton at 8:40AM on Jun 5th 2007

19. If you want to learn more about where Ron Paul stands on anything, and youwant to dig a little deeper than YouTube, then try ronpaullibrary.com .

Also, the good folks at ronpaulforums.com will happily answer questions, thought they're not officially related to the campaign.

Angela Thornton at 8:46AM on Jun 5th 2007

20. Phil,

First, I think you need to understand Dr. Paul's first and foremost goal. It is to restore the constitution and its ideals of a limited federal government to the United States. This country was founded on the principles of limited government, principles which have been nearly completely ignored. Its my opinion that we need to place limits back on the federal government, and the only way I can see that happening is if the constitution is used for its original purpose. If we don't, I can't see how corporatism won't just get worse and worse... IMO, as long as the government has the power to do nearly anything, vast amounts of money and resources will go towards manipulating it to serves the ends of special interests. I wish I could believe that electing the right people would cure it, but I believe the problem is systemic, and the system must be fixed.

As I'm sure you know, under a federalist system like we are supposed to have, the federal government does not make all the decisions. So even if Dr. Paul does, somehow, abolish some types of welfare, under his presidency that would be decided by the states. The constitution simply does not grant him the authority to institute universal healthcare. In many ways I think that is a superior solution, because different states can try different solutions, and the best one can arise instead of creating another semi-permanent federal monopoly on an industry.

He's also the only candidate who seems to understand why we got attacked on 9/11, and how to protect ourselves against future such attacks. And he also seems to be the only one who knows why our healthcare is so expensive (reliance on 3rd-party payers caused by only employer health benifits getting tax breaks) in the first place.

Your desire to help out the have-nots is, of course, commendable. I too used to be a democrat like yourself, until I started doing more research as to just where my federal taxes go. I don't want to pay for corporate welfare, or to destroy a country then build it back up again. The simple fact is that people who want to contribute to the have-nots can do so through charity, which gives them much more personal choice as to where the money ends up.

G at 8:49AM on Jun 5th 2007

21. Phil,

First, I think you need to understand Dr. Paul's first and foremost goal. It is to restore the constitution and its ideals of a limited federal government to the United States. This country was founded on the principles of limited government, principles which have been nearly completely ignored. Its my opinion that we need to place limits back on the federal government, and the only way I can see that happening is if the constitution is used for its original purpose. If we don't, I can't see how corporatism won't just get worse and worse... IMO, as long as the government has the power to do nearly anything, vast amounts of money and resources will go towards manipulating it to serves the ends of special interests. I wish I could believe that electing the right people would cure it, but I believe the problem is systemic, and the system must be fixed.

As I'm sure you know, under a federalist system like we are supposed to have, the federal government does not make all the decisions. So even if Dr. Paul does, somehow, abolish some types of welfare, under his presidency that would be decided by the states. The constitution simply does not grant him the authority to institute universal healthcare. In many ways I think that is a superior solution, because different states can try different solutions, and the best one can arise instead of creating another semi-permanent federal monopoly on an industry.

He's also the only candidate who seems to understand why we got attacked on 9/11, and how to protect ourselves against future such attacks. And he also seems to be the only one who knows why our healthcare is so expensive (reliance on 3rd-party payers caused by only employer health benifits getting tax breaks) in the first place.

Your desire to help out the have-nots is, of course, commendable. I too used to be a democrat like yourself, until I started doing more research as to just where my federal taxes go. I don't want to pay for corporate welfare, or to destroy a country then build it back up again. The simple fact is that people who want to contribute to the have-nots can do so through charity, which gives them much more personal choice as to where the money ends up.

G at 8:51AM on Jun 5th 2007

22. hey Phil, the govt can also provide you w/ a diaper and a wetnap if you like? and seriously, "the cold hard world"? you gotta be kidding, it's called LIFE. obviously you haven't been living much of one. if's people like you that have to be weened off the FedGov dole!

Ron Paul is one of the few honest folks in politics, he's given our country what we have sadly needed for the last 40 years... a guy worth voting for.

million at 10:38AM on Jun 5th 2007

23. In response to Phil. A primary misconception is that because Congressman Paul would, as president, over time, phase out many government welfare programs as well as remove many bloated government offices, that he has no consideration for the "have nots" as you put it. There are several things to consider along this vein.
1) Medicare doesn't cover everyone who might need it. Large groups of people don't qualify because, though they don't make enough money to afford health care, they make "too much" to gain benefits. Meanwhile, thousands of non-citizens, illegal or otherwise, benefit from these programs without even applying for coverage. As a nation, if we were to have national healthcare at all, it should be designed to aid our citizens first before anything else. Even fully socialist countries with a complete NHS that helps all citizens doesn't do anything for foreigners. And why should it? I can personally relate a life experience of my own when I was younger. I was working a customer service job making about $13 an hour. At that rate, I could "afford" insurace to come out of my check each month, but after bills found myself with no money left to actually make use of said insurance. Because I could afford it Medicare and other programs wouldn't cover me, regardless of my inability to actually afford healthcare.
2) Medicare is frequently gouged and overcharged. Because doctors are forced to charge only certain amounts by Medicare, they have no incentive to do more that is absolutely necessary. The only way for them to make more money off the system is to do many pointless unneccessary tests and perscriptions to increase their take. Many doctors do these things to make medicare pay as much as a regular patient would while ultimately doing a worse job than they would for a regular patient.
3) Market stabilization can fix both these problems, but only if Medicare is gone. Yes, many many people will then be uninsured, but this then forces the medical industry to re-evaluate what they charge for things since they suddenly find themselves without anyone to make money from. This also forces stabilization on the Insurance Industry as things can become more competitive, ultimately benefitting the people.
4) If Congressman Paul has his way with the IRS and Federal Reserve, these "have nots" have a much better capacity to support themselves. Even if Joe Wage Earner gets all his tax money back at the end of the year in the form of a refund, that doesn't change the fact that he didn't have that money when his son broke his arm or when he got sick.
5) Ron Paul wants to phase these programs out over time. He doesn't expect them to go away tommorow or next year. He knows too many people have come to depend on them.
6) Ron Paul is only against "Federal" welfare programs. The states themselves can have as much welfare as they want as long as they can afford to provide it.

In response to your statement about not minding that taxes because its distributed to the have nots, there's a problem with that. The interest on our outstanding loans to the Federal Reserve alone exceed the amount collected from federal income tax. This means that not a penny of the money you pay in taxes actually ever makes it to those government programs and they are strictly funded by further borrowing. If you truly want your money to help those in need, donate to a homeless shelter or, better yet, go and find someone to help.

Larry at 6:28PM on Jun 5th 2007

24. In response to Ron Paul's idea of getting rid of the department of homeland security, Phil said:

"Instead of eliminating our security, wouldn't it be better to improve it."

Paul's argument is that eliminating the huge, cumbersome bureaucracy WILL improve security.

The problem Phil takes it for granted that every government program can and will do what its title suggests it will do. That is a terrible assumption to make, given the hideous record of almost all federal programs.

From the "Defense" Department (9/11) to the "Education" Department (DECREASING literacy rates and overall education levels), the federal government's programs continue to fail and demand ever more of the citizens' wealth to subsidize more failure.

The American public (and you Phil) would to itself well by not accepting as fact that such departments actually help rather than exacerbate a national problem.

Garry at 11:13AM on Jun 8th 2007

25. Anyone who thinks their income tax dollars go to pay for anything is highly mistaken. All one needs to do is take a quick glance at the Grace Commission report to Ronald Reagan. "100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government."

The Federal Government does nothing to provide for water, education, welfare, etc... The individual States provide these programs via gas, property and other taxes. Which is the point Dr. Paul is making. Get the Feds out of our lives and our pockets. Oh, and as far as the deficit is concerned, you pay for it by eliminating altogether.

Let's get real people, the federal government does not provide us with anything - We the People do!

Rob at 10:03AM on Jun 5th 2007

26. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qrwy3mR3Mo

bret at 4:55PM on Jun 5th 2007

27. million writes: "hey Phil, the govt can also provide you w/ a diaper and a wetnap if you like? and seriously, "the cold hard world"? you gotta be kidding, it's called LIFE."

You should not presume about the lives of someone you only know via their political views on a news blog. Everything I got I earned myself, and, in response to another commenter who was less personally hostile, I HAVE given thousands besides the enormous taxes I've paid to others. Thanks for the two posters with the youtube url - it was removed by user, but I appreciate the effort. The third time around on the Comedy Central website I was finally able to see the video (don't know what that was all about).

Ron says he would get rid of Medicare but its not high on the priority list (if you watch it, the exact response to the question would you get rid of medicare was "yes, but its not high on the priority list.") There was NO applause or even a giggle from the audience, so I guess that shows what they feel.

States rights got us segregation, Rosa Parks having to make a big deal to move to the front of the bus, etc. The problem with States rights is that they seem to forget things like the Fifth Amendment provision for equal protection under the law.

Corporate protectionism hit its height under the Bush Administration with no big contracts awarded on a mass basis. I don't know who was in office during the Chysler corporate aid deal.

Since we all seem to agree that there is already an elite which controls a huge portion of the assets in the nation, and since Paul would just let them keep it because taxes are stealing (but I guess not if the states have to do it when their federal funding for their Medicare/Medicaid programs is cut)then the idea seems to be to let them keep it. Its way past the point of preventing an elite from hogging by simply stripping away federal taxation rights.

I hate to be the lightening rod - but if it furthers the conversation, then thats cool. Plus, being your average American: a 51 year old left wing Democrat gay paraplegic former corporate lawyer turned health basketcase I am frequently a lightening rod.

But even though I'm brain dead from all the lightening striking (that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it) I'll still be voting straight Democrat this year. I warned John McCain's supporters that I felt sorry for them wasting their donation money. Let me put it another way - anyone who tries to gut social security and medicare or expresses the idea of it happening in the future just commited political suicide. Doesn't that make Paul campaign donations kind of like a pitch-in for the campaign funeral?

I really don't have any interest in thinking about Paul anymore (but remember the lightening) so I'll move on to another topic.

PS shhhhhhhhhhhh I'll whisper so only you know - its not too late to make your vote and campaign contribution count. hillaryclinton.com, hillaryhub,com (I LOVE her), johnedwards.com (great healthplan), barackobama.com (inspiring leader).

Phil at 11:38AM on Jun 5th 2007

28. Phil,

The problem I see with Clinton's plan vs. the plan of Liberty is this: under the plan of liberty, I have freedom to choose what I want to do with my property (i can bury it, invest it, donate it, etc.)

Under Clinton's plan, I am forced to give away my property. I am forced by the barrel of a gun (or jail) to give away my property.

Here's the way I see it.

Is it wrong to steal?
Is it wrong to get someone else to steal for you?

Then it's wrong to get the government to take someone else's money (forcibly) and give it to you.

Chuck

Chuck at 12:46AM on Jun 6th 2007

29. Chuck writes: "Is it wrong to steal?
Is it wrong to get someone else to steal for you?"

Hey Chuck - I felt a lightening jolt in the shower and thought I'd better check (after all I did have a paranormal experience at the supermarket last week - I had a flash that the checkout clerk would be a miserable experience and it was true!) Except for my Medicare (which all senior citizens, including probably members of almost every commenters extended family) and disabled people receive)you won't be stealing for me. If my social security went away, my private disability policy payments would go up correspondingly (my on job benefits were earned through merit in the dog eat dog world of the legal field) - but SSA will come in handy in 15 years, and comes in even handier for millions of others right now. Whether taxation is stealing or sharing depends on where you come from in terms of ideology, and most commenters, including me, are already set in their ideology. However I'm willing to listen to other ideologies and am open to persuasion - Paul just doesn't persuade me. The more I hear, the more I think Comment 1 is directly on point. But as I said, I'm brain dead from too much lightening.

I gotta go now - I only have 2 brain cells left and have to drive the car. Some may replenish overnight. In the meantime, I hope I don't feel a shock while I'm making a left hand turn with hand controls. BTW, I paid for the car and the handcontrols all by myself - isn't that something?

Phil at 1:30PM on Jun 5th 2007

30. Phil, I like you man, you're a thinker. But you'll never think effectively if you don't have knowledge of history on your side. From what you've written on this post I'd say you got bad information somewhere along the way, probably in a government school. It's okay, so did I, I just happened to dig deeper as did many of the folks posting here (which makes you their "lightning rod.") Please don't take offense, just imagine for a second that maybe what you learned in school was twisted in a few ways to make the government out to be the good guy. It's not that absurd of a thought, it happens all the time, and has happened throughout history. Also give a little more study to capitalism (your perseptions are DEAD wrong), as it will shed some new light on history for you as well, and understanding the things it has done for mankind will truely change your perception of the world. Beware though, you probably won't still "not mind" about the taxes so much....

mike at 2:57PM on Jun 5th 2007