posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 10:55 AM
Paul deserved my sympathy with his anti-war statements - call the troops home etc.Truly, why does an indebted nation wage wars in several countries
thousands of miles away when its has no money to care for its own poor people or repair the bridges in its largest city?
Paul's recent speeches however, has shown him chanting typical Republican slogans - less taxes and less social care - which play into the hands of
the rich and the corporatocracy, more directly than the corrupt democratic party does. That is the number one problem I have with most Republicans
today. (On the other hand, few Reps mind the punitive and intrusive actions of the government into the lives of private citizens. Libertarians have
been notoriously better at that.)
It is obvious to any non-ideological economist that it is not social spending that wrecked America economically, it is Republican tax cuts for the
rich and for the corporations, as well as "welfare" like payments - e.g. to bail out speculators who live off of other people's hard-earned
dollars. It is obvious to me that it is those folks that should be allowed to sink in true capitalism and not private citizens. Added to this, wars on
foreign soil initiated by administrations of both parties. The US can't afford to be the unpaid policeman of the world any more. Let us face that.
But: there is a widespread misunderstanding about the function of the federal and state government among some fellow Americans, orchestrated by
well-defined neoconservative and anti-social interests for decades. In some sectors of public life, the less power government has, the more power
corporations will have, and thus you will have far less say in what happens to you. It is that simple. After all, we vote for politicians their
programmes but we are simply not asked what policies any corporation will pursue, and its heads are also not elected.
At any rate, Paul will not be elected as some powers would want a world war, and he is against that. Those against wars (mostly on the "liberal"
side) are usually more decent on social policies though - no top industrial country can afford to live without welfare and health care - we do not
live in the Wild West any more. (Some would like to, but they have no choice since about a hundred years down the line anyway.)
As for true rugged individualism, we'd better look into the philosophies of the First Americans. They did it better - without corporations or trade
unions. Mostly, power was balanced out between the individual members and the tribe. How is that now? Messed up on both ends.