It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
The free market gave us rivers that were so polluted they could catch fire.
After deregulation and auctioning of electricity in California, Texas gas suppliers started cutting off naturual gas during peak hours. It lead to wildly increasing electrical bills and rolling black outs. Certain companies gamed the system by pledging to supply more power per hour than the transmission lines. They ended up winning contracts for power because they artificially lowered their price per unit of power.
There is a place and time for the government to intervene and a time for them to stay away. I am a limited government guy. Ron Paul on the other hand claims to be a no government guy. I don't think it meshes with his record though.
Ron Paul insists that through tort laws regarding private property, polluters could be stopped. Tell me who has the money to take Exon, Koch Oil, Dupont, or some other company that large to court?
In 2005 Ron Paul introduced a bill that would have allowed cities to ban atheist from holding office. The bill states that seperation of church and state does not extend to cover states and cities.
In 2007 he said that if the Civil Rights Act came up again he would vote against it.
In 1999 he suported a bill that denies gay couples in DC the right to adopt a child.
He talks about ending entitlements. Yet in 2004 he voted to replace taxes breaks labelled as illegal trade subisidies by the WTO with $140 billion in new tax breaks. The bill ensured that the government kept subsidizing big business. The bill also included buy outs for Tobacco farmers. It had a $9.6 billion allowance for encouraging tobacco farmers to change crops. A bit of social engineering meant to lower the amount of tobacco in supply and increase prices.
He voted against vouchers for DC public schools. However, he voted for a tax write off if you send your kid to private school. In other words if you can afford $10,000+ for your kid to attend private school you deserve a $3,000 tax credit. If you can't, tough. He doesn't want to truly bring free markets to schools. Vouchers would ensure that a student could use the money government spends on them to shop for a better education. They could take that money to any school and offset the cost of a better education. Heck private schools could open and compete to run a better school for the same price as public schools. That idea of the free market doesn't work for Ron when it comes to public education. In fact at one time he ran on abolishing public education.
He voted no on tax incentives to create green energy. Yet he voted to supply billions in subsidies for big businesses to export goods. While he was voting against green energy he voted no to ending subsidies for oil and gas exploration. Isn't it hypocritical to say that we can't subsidize green energy, but we can subsidize oil exploration. I'm no enviromentalist, hey I hate being forced to recycle, but a little intellectual honesty goes a long way.
Ron Paul talks a good game. I even agree with him on foreign policy, the federal reserve, and other issues. I just don't think people truly understand where he is coming from, or his definition of the free market.
I believe that freer markets tend to work best. I also believe that to some extent the government does have to intervine to protect the citizen.
I'm not an Athiest nor am I extremely religous but I think Ron Paul is right in this regard, to be elected into office you have to be sworn in and place your right hand on a bible, now if you don't believe in God then what purpose does it serve by placing your right hand on the bible with God as your witness. I'm tired so maybe this sounds wierd but I feel they have no right being sworn in at all if they do not believe in God then they should not be allowed in office if there only gonna lie to the God that they do not believe in. It just doesn't seem right to me.
edit on 16-2-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)