1. Jeff - What concerns me is his belief that by wiping out all federal social programs, and supposedly leaving it to the states to take care of without federal subsidies, the states will have to tax so its just a switch of the tax burden. Plus, corporations have had a chance for years to insure everyone for a reasonable price but its not cost effective to the profit line - so they turn down people with pre-existing conditions, and the elderly, disabled and working poor will be left to die. Other big businesses such as Walmart routinely break worker protection rules, and even though could treat their employees to a fair wage and good working conditions now, they do not do it.

When every limit on big business is taken away, and the entire safety net for everyone but the rich on life and death issues, most people's lives here will be a lot different than your's. It defies common sense to think employers and health insurers will suddenly become benevolent when all controls are taken away, when they are NOT benevolent now.

If Ron Paul's world became a reality, you would be up there enjoying national healthcare - I know there are waits,etc, that the insured in America do not have now, but with Paul, anyone who really needs healthcare will be out in the cold because no insurance company could profit from them. While you enjoy the knowledge of a social safety net if you become disabled and are not a profitable billing unit in society, our insurance companies will simply discard the same class of people who depend on that safety net to stay alive.

EVERY Democratic candidate would get us out of the war pronto, without having to destroy the safety net for people born with average intelligence or physical problems, and with a nation of our wealth, that to me is cruel no matter which way you look at it.

As I've raised the issue over and over again of what do we do with human beings who do not have the capacity to become one of the "haves" in this country, and asked how corporate benevolence for Americans will suddenly happen when all rules are taken away, when they are not even doing it now with rules, no one ever seems to have an answer except to tell me I'm stupid.

I know when you are 25 its hard to imagine that you would ever need a safety net. Then when I was 26 and hit that almost impossible to match bad luck of becoming a paraplegic overnight, I had a rude awakening that stuff that happens to "other people" actually can happen to me or you. I worked as long and as hard as I could, and its now impossible to do so. How would I, or non-rich seniors stay alive in a Paul world.

Moreover, our pollution problem has gotten worse because of relaxation of government standards on pollution - and the global warming issue is real. If a uniform set of pollution rules that are relaxed results in increased pollution, what do you think will happen when 50 different states adopt 50 different ways to control pollution. Bringing our national pollution control mechanisms up to full power again, with added new anti-pollution standards added could easily result in the US becoming part of the solution to global warming, instead of being part of the problem. And, as has been shown in poorer states, attraction of business by relaxing pollution standards even more will probably outweigh long term concerns for our planet. Polluters have not stopped polluting out of good will with national rules, so what evidence is there that their track record on this will improve without rules.

Finally, I like Bill Moyers too, but I also have an independent mind. Just because someone is Bill Moyers says something doesn't mean its always right. I don't even buy into everything my own party does, and I have believed all my life it offers the best chance for America. Buying in lockstep to Paul because Bill Moyers likes him, without analyzing other factors seems to void any independent analysis of the issues. An attitude of "if Bill likes him, I like him" kind of sets up a situation where we might as well have Bill write the blog or give you instructions on what to say. There always has to be independent analysis of what anyone says - because I do not know of ANY human being who is 100% right on every issue - I know I'm certainly not.

Maybe one reason you do not question Paul's domestic agenda is because, as you say, you are Canadian and have the option of not living in that kind of world. But, that does not help those of us who would HAVE TO live in that kind of world. This is why I cannot understand how you could support him.

Phil at 7:07AM on Jun 9th 2007

2. I have other concerns. I too like Paul's war stance and the idea of stopping wasting money on the war on drugs. Except in densely populated areas, almost every bar in America has a parking lot. If I'm on the freeway, I'd much rather be driving behind someone who just smoked a joint than someone who is flat out drunk and maybe in a blackout. So, I'm not against everything he says - just his domestic policy.

And part of that domestic policy would be removal of all control of monopolies, and no redistribution of wealth before we get rid of all the federal rules. The bottom line is that the more money you have, the more money you make - which results in consolidation of wealth in the hands of an ever smaller group of our population. Getting rid of all federal controls won't help that, it will make it worse.

For example, lets look at oil companies - with just a few companies holding the lions share of the market. According to the Paul doctrine, lack of control of oil companies will somehow make them benevolent through the law of supply and demand; but we have the law of supply and demand now, and gas prices go ever higher. When it got to the point that fuel prices were so high that the lives of people in colder areas could possibly be endangered because of inability to heat their homes, not a single oil company ponied up to help the poor who work keep from freezing to death. The only country and oil company that did provide real heating aid to the poor was Hugo Chavez's Citgo. Chavez is destroying personal freedom in Venezuela, and at the same time he is the only leader in that country who has shown any concern in hundreds of years about making sure the poor have food and medical care.

Then there is this whole re-shift from federal to states rights. To me, what this would result in is not one America but 50 Americas. Many whites in the south still have the same racial attitudes they had before federal civil rights acts - and when the federal laws are abolished, what evidence is there that Afro-Americans will not be disenfranchized again - after all, the majority in those states would probably support it.

There are also states who provide more benefits for the losers of society than others - for example California. In contrast, here in Florida, there seems to be little concern. What happens is that someone who can't make it for whatever reason in Florida meanders their way to California where they have more access to food, healthcare, etc. If all federal aid for programs for the poor are abolished, a state such as California would be even more flooded with homeless - and the disproportionate expense for some compassion would wipe out the state, while a lack of concern for the poor in states where the poor have every incentive to go to California would actually be rewarded for lack of compassion.

Then, there is the reality of our healthcare system. I admire the fact that Dr. Paul treats Medicare patients for free or for reduced payment- but that is far from the norm. Most doctors in this country charge a reduced price for mass business from insureds. If you don't qualify for insurance and there is no reason to believe insurance companies will somehow become more compassionate, many doctors and hospitals charge what is called full price. I can give you an excellent example - I had a procedure done on my renal system that lasted an hour and the full price was $44,000. If I was uninsured that would be the price I would be expected to pay. Because I had Medicare and the hospital cut a deal for reduced price in trade for increased business, the total cost of the procedure was $879 of which I paid a 10 percent co-pay.

Roughly half of all bankruptcies in the US are due to uninsured people unable to afford their full price medical bills. When the disabled and seniors become uninsured because they will NEVER be profitable to insure on an open market, they will simply be turned away. Those who are basically healthy, but can't afford insurance under companies that are supposed to become benevolent when they never have been, come to a point where they need expensive full price procedures (and it happens all the time), absent bankruptcy protection, they will likely spend the rest of their lives being financially drained by having to pay off the cost of just one $44,000 one hour procedure for the rest of their lives, because they also have to pay to eat and put a roof over their head. Would you like to live in that kind of society?

Moreover, companies that have a large market share in any business now are precluded from unfair trade practices such as collusive underpricing of goods to drive the new competitor out of business. Once the new competitor is out- the price charged by the monopolies goes back up. How will this improve if all federal anti-trust laws are abolished. Someone simply saying it will happen in contravention of actual evidence of how this all has worked in the past before anti-trust laws is not convincing to me. Moreover, if they can't explain how this will happen without referring me to a tome on economics, how are they going to explain it to the many Americans who did nor graduate from high school, or were unable to go to college because they could not afford it?

Phil at 8:19AM on Jun 9th 2007

3. Listen - re: cutting programs, RP himself has said it will be of course a gradual process. Cutting Medicare is not high on his agenda, nor should it be. But REFORMING things IS. Stopping wars - against poverty, drugs, and countries with OIL - is mission critical at this stage. Period. If you think the democrats are prepared to do this you are WRONG. For crying out loud, they were elected to Congress to do PRECISELY THAT ... and they FAILED. And continue to fail. Kucinich and Gravel are the only ones with any principles - but the party is so blinded by Hillbama that it is a done deal.

Re: the Environment - this is bogus reasoning! RP is strictly against subsidizing these evil corporatists (it is obviously not free-market activity here) . . . and you can bet that would go PRONTO. And guess what? That would then allow alternative energy to compete!

It is precisely because people continually look to the federal government to provide solutions that they are consistently disappointed. IT IS LIKE THE ONE RING, IT CANNOT BE USED FOR GOOD.

RP is the best step in the right direction we have at this point. But the important thing is to keep talking about the message. We need a change in policy, and that's what we should be talking about.

bret at 9:23AM on Jun 11th 2007

4. I think the previous poster needs to listen to Mr Paul a little more carefully.
Yes, he would like to see unconstitutional institutions like the IRS and the Federal Reserve disappear over night, but what he has stated is that this first depends on the people being willing for change and that there will be a transitional period. My thinking is that even if he doesn't get there this sentiment would out least curtail or even rescind "Big Government & Corporatism" which I think truly does NOT work for the good of the people but for the good of a few, (elites?).
Just the fact that he has revived the notion of our “Constitution” in politics makes me more open to his views and makes me listen more carefully to what he has to say.
Too be clear, all the other “main” candidates are for "Big Government".
Mr Paul’s statements, backed by an impeccable 10 year voting record", is against this.
Moreover, our pollution problem has gotten worse and one factor is our reliance on oil/petroleum and “Big Government policies”. Mr Paul is one of the few that even appears to recognise this openly as he has no conflict of interest with these powerful oil corporations.
And as for every Democrat “getting us out of the war pronto”, their recent backing for more tax dollars to fund the unconstitutional Iraq war shows us their true colors, they say one thing to win elections and do the opposite once elected, (the same as the republicans).
I am sick of this and have had enough!!
Again, Mr Paul is consistent with his views, has a record to back this up, has no conflicts of interest that I know of and does not attempt to pull the wool over my eyes, (qualities that I think have been sorely lacking in politics today).
Also, Mr Paul is warning us of the impending North American Union which is being brought in by the backdoor, so Mr Jeff Hoard being Canadian should take a very keen interest in this election as it WILL directly affect him if this is allowed to happen!!

daddym200 at 8:54AM on Jun 9th 2007

5. The seduction of socialism lies in the abdication of personal responsibility - passing the buck to government. But is it really reasonable to except that a behemoth bureaucracy will be able solve the problem with less waste than you would? Even a shift to the states would be advantage in that the shear bureaucratic inertia would be reduced by orders of magnitude. Historically America has enjoyed bounty & we have been relatively generous & charitable. Do you think that we need the coercion of law to be that way? I think that seriously undersells our society - Americans do MORE GOOD when they take it upon themselves to be charitable, without piping it through the government so they get their cut. Again, If we allow ourselves to succumb to the seductiveness of socialism, we do so at the expense of the effectiveness which we use our resources - for ourselves and others. This leads to the deeper question - what is the proper role of the government. When considering this, we must remember that when we grant the state power to do good, we also grant it the ability to do bad. Personally, I don't derive my sense of charity or moral code from the state, it comes from some place much deeper than that.

A Big Republic of Small Democracies:
How do you feel about the fact that in our democratic system your vote counts exactly as much as Sean Hannity's. This is the intrinsic setback of democracy. Though democracy is the best system, the smaller it is, the better. The more local a democratic system is, the more statistically likely it will be to represent everyone in that democracy. This is the genius of the founder's republic. Tough issues are worked out on a local level - my vote is not diluted by someone's who is a 1000 miles away, and theirs is not diluted by mine.

Command/Control:
I have learned to become just as weary of the welfare state as I have of the warfare state - they are joined at the hip. They both represent centralized power. Whether you are talking about communism, fascism, or Hillary-socialism, It all boils down to central command/control versus dispersed power/liberty. Our society can be compared to database. It is the goal of a central command structure to improve efficiency by eliminating redundancy, a concept known as database normalization. This can also be seen in economic-globalization, which is really another word for ultra-specialization. But is there more to human life than being a highly efficient cog in a big apparatus? I think so. Everyday it is becoming more evident that we need redundancy. The best example of this is local food supply. We have clearly seen the dangers in putting all of our eggs in one basket, or ultra-specialization, cases in point the ecoli spinach, melamine dog food, & the ever popular rapscallion-scallions courtesy of Taco Bell. If you talk to the "agri-business" guys you would hear about "economies-of-scale" and how it allows them deliver a better product to you at a better price. (Translation: because we got hogs stacked in a warehouse that would make Upton Sinclair blush - we can get you some good ol' bacon to you real cheap.) We also see this in "the volatility of the global economic markets" does it take a genius to see that bad things can happen if you put all your eggs in one basket? I have never heard a better argument for Jefferson's agrarian society.

We need less of this and more local commerce, more self sufficiency. We need a highly dispersed power structure, not a soviet style central planner.

I can't believe I would ever say this, but I am registering as republican to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. Ron Paul 2008!

Col. Crockett's admonition on the welfare-state:
http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm

JuggerPot at 8:56AM on Jun 9th 2007

6. Who IS Ron Paul? They still need to know!!
NOBODY explains Ron Paul
BETTER than Ron Paul himself!

Here is an interactive audio archive of
Ron Paul speeches and interviews as a resource in chronological
order.

http://www.ronpaulaudio.com
The power of mainstream media is well documented right here in this 2003 film.
It will rock your world(view).
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/rpaudio/TheRevolutionWillNotBeTelevised2003.wvx

goldenequity at 9:00AM on Jun 9th 2007

7. I think the previous poster needs to listen to Mr Paul a little more carefully.
Yes, he would like to see unconstitutional institutions like the IRS and the Federal Reserve disappear over night, but what he has stated is that this first depends on the people being willing for change and that there will be a transitional period. My thinking is that even if he doesn't get there this sentiment would at least curtail or even rescind "Big Government & Corporatism" which I think truly does NOT work for the good of the people but for the good of a few, (elites?).
Just the fact that he has revived the notion of our “Constitution” in politics makes me more open to his views and makes me listen more carefully to what he has to say.
Too be clear, all the other “main” candidates are for "Big Government".
Mr Paul’s statements, backed by an impeccable 10 year voting record", is against this.
Moreover, our pollution problem has gotten worse and one factor is our reliance on oil/petroleum and “Big Government policies”. Mr Paul is one of the few that even appears to recognise this openly as he has no conflict of interest with these powerful oil corporations.
And as for every Democrat “getting us out of the war pronto”, their recent backing for more tax dollars to fund the unconstitutional Iraq war shows us their true colors, they say one thing to win elections and do the opposite once elected, (the same as the republicans).
I am sick of this and have had enough!!
Again, Mr Paul is consistent with his views, has a record to back this up, has no conflicts of interest that I know of and does not attempt to pull the wool over my eyes, (qualities that I think have been sorely lacking in politics today).
Also, Mr Paul is warning us of the impending North American Union which is being brought in by the backdoor, so Mr Jeff Hoard being Canadian should take a very keen interest in this election as it WILL directly affect him if this is allowed to happen!!

daddym2000 at 9:05AM on Jun 9th 2007

8. Jeff,

Thanks for the piece. I'd like to point out that many Canadians are opposed to the new SPP which will head us all into a North American Union. In light of that, I would think that any Canadian opposing it would suppport Ron Paul. Please give that some thought.

In respect to your comments, Phil, they are riddled with typical liberal fear-mongering rhetoric. You make WalMart sound like a sweat shop where millions are forced to work. That talk comes straight out of the labor unions who can't touch WalMart so they smear them. WalMart has an appropriate health plan, and is even beginning to set up low cost in-store health clinics for those of us without insurance. Low cost insurance can be purchased as members of Sam's Clubs. Ultra-low pricing on many pharmaceuticals can be purchased through WalMart and Sam's Club pharmacies. Low wages? I think they appropriate for the amount of effort involved in running a cash register, unloading a truck and stocking shelves. If the employees don't care for those wages, of course they can further their educations and strive for better. Unfortunately, for many, this type of work is a plateau. You will ALWAYS have people who will settle (and that is neither good nor bad, IMHO). At least they are kept off the dole!

National healthcare will destroy healthcare in this country. I don't want the government telling me what I can and can't eat, how to treat my self by allowing only option A, B or C. I don't want my government to dictate WHO I can see for medical help because my zip code mandates it - or else I am not going to get care. If I want to eat cherries for my arthritis, I don't want to have to get a prescription from my doctor, which I won't get anyway, thanks to the FDA.

Pollution? What have you done on the local level to work toward a cleaner environment? If you don't want fluoride in your municiple water supply, for example, then get people organized locally to stop it. I know that you are wheel chair-bound, but that doesn't stop my immoblized uncle with life-long CP... He's one of the most ardent activists I know, and I'm one of the few who can even understand him when he talks! (He's in his 60s, by the way.)

What the people in the United States have failed to realize is that our failures in regulating healthcare, pollution, WalMarts and Big Box stores have all come about because of ignorance, public demand, or lack thereof. Government and politcs have become too overwhelming to follow, study or get involved with for most of our 'government (un)educated' illiterate masses. We can only handle topics on the level of Paris Hilton or Anna Nicole Smith while the Ted Kennedys and George Bushes quietly, gradually and methodically strip of us ouf out liberties and personal power as citizens.

As long as we have cold beer, anti-depressants and wide screen TV, we are all happy idiots. We all bitch and moan, but don't do much else as long as our bellies are full of Fritos and Pepsi.

You don't like WalMart in your community? Then join or form a local citizens group to preserve what you do have. Government imposed regulations on private business is called fascism, pal. You want a cleaner environment? Then get involved locally and change it. (If you are worried about missing American Idol, then get Tivo. I'm sure there is a government program somewhere which supplies it.)

WE made this mess, pal, and ONLY WE will turn it around. No big government agency will hold a candle to the private sector. Could you imagine the United States Postal Service carrying the load now shared by FEDEX, UPS, AirBorne, and others? When was the last time you waited in line at your local post office to buy stamps because the lobby machine was out-of-order (again) and there was one clerk at the counter because the other 2 were on break? I'm there nearly every day, and believe me, it is the worst part of my day.

Dr. Paul is right on the money when he says we cannot solve all of our problems at the national level. Huge government programs ALWAYS prove to be inneffective and drain us financially.

Get outside your box and look at the other side of the coin.

And Canada? You want to be left out of the 'North American Union' and go about your business? You'd better get behind Ron Paul too, because ANY other candidate out there is going to draw us all into this mess even further. It has already begun.

Tom
Myrtle Beach, SC
www.rpsc08.com

Tom at 9:46AM on Jun 9th 2007

9. Here's his response to the people worried about Social Security, Welfare, and all that. Remember, his main goal isn't to destroy it, it is to let the States control it. Florida doesn't need the exact same program Alaska has.

Here's the quote from http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/davis4.html:


"And you know, take some of the liberal welfare spending that Dennis might support more than I. But you know, I’m not hostile toward that. If I can save the money from overseas, put some of it against the deficit, end up with a net reduction in the size of the budget, at the same time stopping a war, I may well be very open to funding some of these programs. Because I’m not out to gut some of these programs that have taught people to be very dependant on the government, like medical care. I mean, that’s not my goal. I’ve never run for office with the goal of slashing [those programs] even though philosophically I don’t think it’s the best way to deliver services and prosperity to poor people."

Angela Thornton at 9:55AM on Jun 9th 2007

10. Phil, your fears are largely unfounded. One thing that has not been done in this country in at least 130 years is cutting out the subsidizing of corporations. Our Government pays out Billions of dollars every year to subsidize large businesses. Ron Paul would never go along with that. He doesn't vote for that kind of thing as a Congressman, and he would veto that legislation as President.

Americans have big hearts and loose wallets when it comes to people in need. I can guarantee you we would help pick each other up if the social safety net was loosened. Study what happened with Katrina or when that Tsunami hit Indonesia, or in the wake of 9/11. Individuals, churches, civic organizations, and private businesses helped more than the Federal Government did!

Dr. Paul has stated many times he would not just leave people dependent on welfare hanging. He realizes there would be a long transition period, but he wants to move our country away from socialism.

I agree with him, and he has my vote and the votes of my family locked up.

Cameron Davis at 10:48AM on Jun 9th 2007

11. In response to the person who said, "any Democratic President would get us out of the war Pronto", what do you base that on? I can't think of a single Democratic President in the past century who kept our troops out of foreign wars. I guarantee you, if Hillary or Edwards are elected President, thousands of U.S. troops will be in Iraq STILL in 2012. With Obama, I'm not sure, but I think he may end up running as an Independent. Just a hunch.

Cameron Davis at 10:47AM on Jun 9th 2007

12. Thanks for the post about Ron Paul. That's the thing about the Web, it's world-wide. Australians, Brits, Belgians, Canadians... when RP does very well on the 'Net it's not just Americans that see it.

As per your concerns about environmentalism. I should add that Dr. Paul is the Congressman who is trying to get Industrial Hemp decriminalized and he also recently help christen a huge new biodiesel plant down in Galveston, Texas. Dr. Paul is not lax on the environment, he simply has a whole different way of looking at things than the hype machine. In other words, if you care about the environment, make good choices and live accordingly and try to get your friends to do the same, but don't count on the govenment to clean the air or stop global warming. It's on you.

WillyPete at 10:47AM on Jun 9th 2007

13. I live outside the USA, in a country where many of Paul san's policies are practiced. This country I am in is providing a great deal of funding through loans to the US government. And the people here take care of each other the way Americans should. It is plain to see, from this perspective, that Ron Paul's policies are more than correct, they are down to earth and quite suited to the majority of people's basic human nature. To anyone who doubts I say "What does he know of England, who only England knows?"

Stewart at 11:30AM on Jun 9th 2007

14. If Ron Paul pulls off a miracle and wins the republican nomination, or Mike Bloomberg runs as an independent, you can just get yourself used to the prospect of two terms for President Hillary Clinton. Of all the democrat candidates, Hillary would provide the least damage to the armed forces, which we will need very much, in future decades. The damage she will cause in domestic matters is unknowable, but it will only harm national security if she screws up the economy, which we ill need to produce the tools of national defense.

Wally Lind at 11:38AM on Jun 9th 2007

15. Cameron, Phil is incapable of grasping reality. He's a socialist to the core, and hence: cannot speak the truth. He goes around to every topic about Ron Paul and posts the same lies. In fact, I've created a summation of all of his posts:

"Strawman. Strawman. Personal attack. Non sequitur. Personal attack. Blatant assertion. Lie. Strawman. Personal attack. Lie. Lie. Strawman. Personal attack. Strawman."

Eventually, people will get the hint about Phil's ignorance.

Knight_of_BAAWA at 11:37AM on Jun 9th 2007