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.
edit on 16-2-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)
. 
