Questions regarding Ron Paul's Political Positions.

Salutations ATS.

I have a few questions I would like to put to some of you in hopes of better understanding the possible ramifications of electing Ron Paul to the White House.

As an American citizen and a registered voter I would preface by saying that I believe in America as an ideal and would cite Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan as the greatest American presidents of the last century. As such I identify with moderate conservative values and believe there is a civic duty to intelligently participate in the electoral process, meaning I try to be as informed as possible and take the responsibility seriously.

After reading the opinions of many here and across the web regarding Ron Paul as a presidential candidate, I have found myself in agreement with enough of his political views to warrant my further researching of the platform behind his Presidential bid.

In the past I had not seriously considered Ron Paul as a viable candidate, truthfully because I have seen him as an unelectable independent interest who in all likelihood would only serve to fracture the conservative electorate( I remember the Ross Perot debacle too well) and guarantee another 4 years of the incumbent (at this juncture I believe a one term Obama presidency is in the nations beast interest)

After digging around a bit and reading what both his detractors and supporters have to say I have to admit that he seems very appealing in some aspects, but in others strikes me as deserving of Rush Limbaugh's recent fruitcake lampooning.

I believe Ron Paul is sincere and can be trusted to stand by his beliefs once in office and not be swayed by partisanship and special interests. (He is clearly a principled man and his congressional voting record speaks for itself)

I believe Ron Paul would not shrink from making the tough and painful call if necessary.

One of the greatest downfalls of President Obama's administration is his seeming inability to make tough, decisive calls for fear of public criticism. An administration should establish policy based on the campaign promises that put them in office, not current opinion polls or the whims of the media. The right decision is not always the easiest and most popular, the President can never please everyone and should not try.

I agree with Ron Paul's views in limiting and even reversing Federal bureaucracy and federal regulation in favor of states rights.

I agree his position on free trade, the American withdrawal from both the WTO and NATO ( NATO has no real purpose with the fall of the Soviet Union) and most of his immigration policies ( I disagree with his position on the 14th amendment, that the tradition of automatic citizenship by birthright should be rescinded.)

I am in agreement with his position on no federal legislation regarding same sex unions, health care and free speech.

I am an atheist and I'm mixed to mostly cold on his support of prayer in school and his objections to federally funded education, U.S participation in the U.N. and his opposition to abortion. These are secondary issues at the moment and by no means major disqualifiers.

My main questions and concerns are Ron Paul's economic policies such as his idea's on ending the federal income tax, abolishment of the federal reserve in favor of a return from fiat currency to a commodity-backed currency. Admittedly, I am not an economist but do have an understanding of the economy and am hoping for some education here.

With the current state of the U.S. economy (and the globe by default), isn't doing away with the regulation of the federal reserve and the advantages of a fiat currency an incredibly dangerous proposition? Does this not severely curtail a large economic powers possible options to flexibly react to the needs of its economy?

I see no real advantage for the U.S. to embrace a commodity-backed currency short of a last ditch effort to save the economy in a hyperinflation scenario (which is not currently the situation).

By my understanding, returning to a gold standard could be extremely detrimental to the U.S. at this particular time as the U.S. dollar is already under attack by China, the change would both further destabilize the dollar and force large scale devaluation of American financial assets. The U.S. dollar is currently the worlds primary reserve currency so unless the goal is implementing economic isolationism it is in the U.S. economic best interest to continue with the current system and accept the fact that the current standard of living can only be supported by practicing international trade in a global economy.

Deregulation and economic liberalization were two of the primary causes for the mess the country is in now, how does allowing the banks even more freedom make any sense at all after they just took less than a decade after partial deregulation to muck up so badly that a trillion dollar bailout was necessary?

I would love to believe in this guy, however the more I read I am beginning to believe Ron Paul's politics are driven by his ideology to disempower,redefine and restructure the federal government with little regard for the practical consequence to society.

I understand the office of the president only has so much power and much of what Ron Paul proposes would not pass the congress if nothing else due to the influence special interests and lobbyist agendas.

After the most recent ATS straw poll it is obvious there are a lot of people that believe in Ron Paul's message and understand this issue better than myself. I would greatly appreciate anyone's input who can enlighten me as to the benefits to the country of a Ron Paul presidency (beyond breaking the status quo of the two party system or symbolically "sticking it to the Man")?

Your post is blank, but I have a question about his political position.

How does Ron Paul feel about tariffs?

I get conflicting information when researching that on the internet and I don't know who to believe. Is he in favor of having higher tariffs or no tariffs at all?

I heard that he wants the US out of WTO and NAFTA, but at the same time I heard he wants no tariffs. That is the same position that the WTO emphasize. So I am a bit confused.

reply to post by Hippo45


Tariffs are a regulatory action. RP believes in a free market, unlike the other politicians who think it should "be free, except for here, here, and here."

reply to post by Hippo45


I like how you take charge of a situation.

Originally posted by EmVeeFF
reply to post by Hippo45

 

Tariffs are a regulatory action. RP believes in a free market, unlike the other politicians who think it should "be free, except for here, here, and here."

Pity he doesn't follow the constitution here

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

We need tariffs. the economy is crashing due to unfair trade and cheap outsourced crap. What is going on here is horribly irregular and needs to be reigned in.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

My answer -

reply to post by SaturnFX


The constitution says you HAVE to make tariffs? I dont think so. Or maybe it is I who has the reading comprehension problem?

no

I economic regulation didn't put us in the situation we are today, there would be no need for tariffs because the USA would have held its place as the leader of innovation.

Unfortunately when self important nit-wits see a "problem" and force a "solution" on we the people, it creates more problems. And the vicious circle continues.

The key is to stop messing with # and allow equilibrium to naturally occur.

pauls stance on the federal reserve answers the question of tariffs

if the value of the dollar rises tariffs wouldnt be needed.

it means us goods if there is such a thing would cost more thus generate more revenue


meh

Originally posted by EmVeeFF
reply to post by Hippo45

 

Tariffs are a regulatory action. RP believes in a free market, unlike the other politicians who think it should "be free, except for here, here, and here."

How does Ron Paul expect to fund the national government then. If he doesn't want any federal income tax, no taxes on businesses and no tariffs, then how can the national government fund anything?

reply to post by SaturnFX


Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought I heard somewhere he encouraged tariffs on imports but not on exports?

On the tariffs issue, I found this on wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org...

Rather than taxing personal income, which he says assumes that the government owns individuals' lives and labor, he prefers the federal government to be funded through excise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs. However, this position is now suspect. During the 2011 CPAC conference, he said he would support a flat income tax of 10 % at 19:23 of that speech

But it is wikipedia. Im trying to find a better site.

I know I have said this before, and I am really glad people are taking the time to read the Constitution.......
but it is our Country's Bible.
Nobody on this site is ordained to give any enforceable meaning to it. 9 people in our Country have been ordained. They will tell you what our Bible "means"

We can stand up in our pews and shout out to these robe wearing partisans what we think our Bible says and means.
But at the end of the day.....They tell us what it says and means.

So.....my point is.....be careful when you throw around the Constitution as if you know what it means....because the 9 that are in charge, almost always, if it is important, can't even get 6 of them to agree with each other about what it means.

If people want to sound intelligent when discussing the Constitution...just preface it with..."this is how I interpret what. . .Article, Amendment, etc....means" Boom! You get a 50point bump to your IQ.

I won't get into the whole...."I know my rights" deal..........most of them don't know the difference between rights and privileges.

To a kid, or to people that have reached their intellectual potential, this is a post to blow over.........for anyone else that might find themselves in a room full of attorneys and judges trying to make small talk, keep this in mind and you will do more than hold your own..............don't laugh........some of you reading this will get into a Constitutional debate with someone that comes off as if they wrote the damn thing themselves....Shut them down
with what I've said. or if all else fails and you can't remember all this Bible like stuff.....Just ask the didactic blowhard..."when was the last unanimous decision SCOTUS has made"...........(if he/she has an answer...bow and go refresh your drink in the other room) otherwise....what makes you think, sir, that you know what the Constitution means? if the 9 can't agree on what it means?

I know this will help at least one person out there........speaking of didactic.........yeah I also know the word irony.

My apologies,

My browser crashed before I had gotten past the title and I had no idea this had posted.

I'm finishing the original post now and will contribute the intended text for the OP shortly.

Thank you for being good sports.

Originally posted by Hippo45

Originally posted by EmVeeFF
reply to post by Hippo45

 

Tariffs are a regulatory action. RP believes in a free market, unlike the other politicians who think it should "be free, except for here, here, and here."

How does Ron Paul expect to fund the national government then. If he doesn't want any federal income tax, no taxes on businesses and no tariffs, then how can the national government fund anything?

Why should they? do you live in a state?

Originally posted by buni11687
On the tariffs issue, I found this on wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org...

Rather than taxing personal income, which he says assumes that the government owns individuals' lives and labor, he prefers the federal government to be funded through excise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs. However, this position is now suspect. During the 2011 CPAC conference, he said he would support a flat income tax of 10 % at 19:23 of that speech

But it is wikipedia. Im trying to find a better site.

edit on 17-8-2011 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)

Hope that helps.

Originally posted by EmVeeFF

Originally posted by Hippo45

Originally posted by EmVeeFF
reply to post by Hippo45

 

Tariffs are a regulatory action. RP believes in a free market, unlike the other politicians who think it should "be free, except for here, here, and here."

How does Ron Paul expect to fund the national government then. If he doesn't want any federal income tax, no taxes on businesses and no tariffs, then how can the national government fund anything?

Why should they? do you live in a state?

Well when China decides to invade Ohio I just hope they go through PA.

Edit: Correct text now posted in the first post at the top of the page.

Please take a moment to read the intended OP.

How does a free market without regulation stop the formation of monopolies? How does it stop the formation of monopoly owned media that pushes the ideology of the money makers? How does the free market protect against environmental damage caused by all the money making? How do we ensure young children are not forced to work instead of being educated? How does the free market renew the non renewable resources of the planet?

I'm sure someone here will be able to answer theses questions for me.

reply to post by neo96


Ron Paul supports privatization of money production, Neo. Essentially, his position is that the ability for the Fed to print money is awful and terrible, hey, let's give it to all the private banks in the nation instead, 'cause that'll work to curb inflation.

Basically he has a good idea - getting rid of the federal Reserve - and takes it in entirely the wrong direction.

See, the problem is, he's like the rest of the idiots that suck the toes of Freidrich Hayek; he's not a student of economics, he's a student of a market-based religion.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


These are some of the concern I had meant to voice in the missing text of the blank OP above (now corrected, TY Moderators .)

If nothing else this issue is forcing me to learn a lot very quickly. ( I don't care who you are, wikipedia instantly bumps your IQ 50+ points )

I recommend...

Political positions of Ron Paul

Deregulation

Austrian business cycle theory

Austrian School

In my limited view, the U.S. economy has grown far too complex to be managed by the whim of chance or trust in others to not lie cheat and steal to make a dollar.

Its a nice thought but not realistic to expect from any contemporary civilization and particularly our current form of capitalism.

I believe some oversight on a Federal level is mandatory to maintain economic equilibrium.