An Honest Question for Ron Paul Enthusiasts

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
I have an honest question that I've been pondering for awhile when it comes to Ron Paul's ideas, and I genuinely am interested in any answers the ATS community has. Please forgive any generalizations, they are not meant to offend, only to frame my question. I hope this will also be of interest to others watching the political games afoot.

Ron Paul is proposing the largest and most sweeping federal government reduction of any serious candidate I can remember in my several decades of voting. What I don't understand is how, if he was elected, any changes/reductions/eliminations of this magnitude could be actually accomplished within our Congress. (I'm referring to the elimination of cabinet level departments, etc.) After all, I think the days are long gone, if indeed they ever existed, when Congress respected a "mandate" of an opposing ideology, from a presidential election - and I am going on the belief that his ideology and that of the majority of Republican Congressman and Senators is about as similar as a dog and a T-rex.

I am not considering in this context the appropriateness of an implementation of his ideas - only whether a leader from such a strongly divergent ideology can accomplish any substantive change within the circumstances as they are in Washington, and if so, how.




posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
he would use his presidential powers , use the spotlight of the world stage as his platform and start dishing it out


the world would listien once he is president and even the news stations would start kissing his butt like they do obama's now


once he gets to that level he can start with his administration and advisors to also help push his limited government agenda


but he won't make it that far .. he will catch a bullet before that ever happens


but we can still hope can't we ?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Open2Truth
 


Not sure that would even be needed. Some restructuring maybe would do. Plenty of other excuses for tax money wasting to cut already. like the stupid wars, overseas bases everywhere, prison costs for all the marijuana smokers etc.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
As commander in chief, he could end the wars by himself with Constitutional authority. The troops would then bring an economic boom to the United States as opposed to spending their money in Germany, South Korea, etc. As president he could pardon non-violent offenders serving time in federal jail as well as the "financial terrorists" who follow the Constitution and wish to use gold and silver as legal tender.

Ron Paul has said that the domestic programs can be dismantled over time and does not require an immediate closing (unlike the military which would be brought home immediately). As president he can't dictate what the congress can and can not do, although he would have veto power of course.
edit on 5-9-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Along with the election of Ron Paul as the President, there will be another sweep through congress, getting rid of some of the people who refused to listen to the will of the people.

I suspect at that point, Congress will get the picture and do what is right.

The Federal government is out of control, has been for decades, and its time to dismantle a good portion of it.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
He could do a lot through executive orders, and being the Commander in Chief, I'm pretty sure he can withdraw troops whenever he wants. I understand your point, but remember he can veto bills as well, which gives him some bargaining power.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
I do not believe there will be any substantive change.
Hopefully Mr. Paul is aware of this and willingly allows some to think they really HAVE a voice.
edit on 9/5/2011 by FrenchOsage because: traded a g for an n



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   
As everyone else has said. He does have the power to control our military. And he can pull all troops at any time without Congress. He also has the power of executive order though it is limited he can still do certain things without congress. Obama has done it plenty.

He does also have the power to veto bills. Congress can however overturn a veto. Which is not a an everyday occurrence, but has happened. The power of veto can be used as a bargaining chip. And yes he can lay pardons to non-violent criminals. All of this a President can do without the authority of Congress.

Yes Paul would have power and an audience. He would also have the Rep and Tea Party behind him as well. Well the majority of them.

However the bottom line is. The power that he will have will be the power of the American people. They did it to Obama by taking over the house. It can be done again by taking over the Senate. At that point the sky is the limit.

I can guarantee you Paul has a plan. He's a brilliant man, but completely misunderstood by most.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Open2Truth
 


most of the organizations, programs, and positions that he wishes to cut are out side the "normal government" and were enacted through presidential powers, so can be ended by those same powers. Homeland security began this way. many security agencies and bureaus were enacted without the consent on congress and never challenged.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Open2Truth
 


Excellent question. Honestly, there's no chance he'd be able to do all he says he wants to do any more than Obama was able to have a public option healthcare system. He would have to have several compromises and hybrids of his original vision. However, he would be commander-in-chief so the foreign policy aspect of his platform would be most likely realized.

The biggest thing (aside from stopping the wars) that he would be able to accomplish (if only a one-term president) would be to get an honest dialog going between the people. If republicans and democrats both realized that the American people are no longer falling for their illusions of representation, they will have to adopt a more "Ron Paulish" stance. Politicians aren't stupid, contrary to popular belief, and they will adapt and be swayed by the voters.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Open2Truth
 


While I am leaning on the fence regarding Paul, and so far, he is the only one I would consider voting for, there are a couple things I consider him to be wanting on.

The Economy: Reducing Government waste is a good thing, but laying off one quarter to a third or more of all government employees in this economy would make things worse in my opinion. We need to bring back jobs in America first, and then start the downsizing. It could take place in four years, but we have all seen how people are reluctant to change. It has to be done slowly.

Foreign policy: The world has changed since the signing of the Constitution, there are those who would see us returning to our borders as a sign of weakness and step up their attacks. No good could come from that scenario. I’m all for a gradual pullback, but not willy nilly. That would also put a crimp in the unemployment numbers. A bad crimp at that.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Open2Truth
 




What I don't understand is how, if he was elected, any changes/reductions/eliminations of this magnitude could be actually accomplished within our Congress.


Executive Orders for the most part, the President himself can eliminate a huge array of useless agencies and "czars".

Veto for the next.. completely stalling the Government is a sure way to ensure the government doesn't grow.
More than anything the best hope we'd have for actual reduction, aside from the executive level, is the prevention of growth. Normally under any President the government expands.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Open2Truth
 


ALL IMO

I think he is talking about getting rid of BIG government and reassigning the tasks to be managed on more local levels, this makes corruption harder and tracking of where money goes a lot easier, it also means issues are addressed more efficiently by the area that it will effect instead of these giant blanket laws and systems that force everything to be handled under a system that is inflexible in many areas.
So yes he will get rid of these big government departments that cost a fortune, are highly inefficient and neglect many but many issues will be managed locally or by other means such as charities in the case of welfare etc.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
First, I want to thank everyone who has posted so far for specifically addressing the question I had. Politics, especially it seems these days, can be so polarizing and divisive - or at least that's the way it has been framed and is playing out in Washington - and I know that it can be a challenge for some to address these issues without the rancor, name calling and so forth. I have shied away from politics of late because I am so sick of the "sound byte" driven dialogue.

Truth be told I was focusing on the elimination of the various departments that Paul has proposed - but I completely agree that a real, tangible and immediate withdrawal of our military from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would be a tremendous change, and one that, as many of you pointed out, would be completely within the powers of the office of President.

After watching the recent debt debate debacle in Washington play out, in which IMHO all parties and participants failed the American public, I made a personal decision to put aside my specific political ideologies and focus on proposed real, doable actions which can't be derailed, hijacked or obstructed by those (inevitable) politicians who disagree. After all, in a two party system, when neither side agrees with the other, the only outcome can be failure.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Open2Truth
 


After what has already been mentioned, he would need to go straight to the American people for support like Reagan did. Then he would have to get a true new class of congress voted in or at least threatened enough by public opinion that they went along with Paul's most favored ideas.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 04:48 AM
link   
No matter how much I support Ron Paul, the truth is that if he can win this presidency, he can't get the job done alone, he'll need us as much as we need him but the difference this time is that, Ron Paul, as a president will be able to speak directly to the people and really polarize the way business is done, I can assure you right now that all of the hardcore dedicated Ron Paul grassroots supporters will go into a frenzy, multiply in size and work overtime to make sure people are communicating with their representatives and senators, under a Ron Paul presidency. If they don't cooperate, we'll have to kick them out for new ones.

The reason why the MSM is fighting Ron Paul so hard is because the entire establishment knows he'll shake things up and politicians will actually be held accountable for their actions.

The man can actually get quite a bit done and has confidently stated many times over his opponents that he doesn't give a rats ass what the generals say, he'll pull our entire military back from the whole world to defend our borders and they can spend their money in America, economic stimulus anybody?

Ron Paul is a package deal, he has had 30 years to think about what he would do to change America and when you look at his big picture, it actually makes sense. It is only when his policies are taken apart and argued by themselves, they seem 'out there'.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


We can't afford any more government waste and believe me, many federal jobs are a waste, a complete waste. It doesn't matter who is President, sacrifices need to be made to expect any tangible change, if we don't do it now, it'll just hurt more later. America needs an extreme makeover, badly. Ron Paul can't say he's going to get rid of waste and still keep some waste because we can't get back on our feet.

And foreign policy, we can't withdraw because it makes us look weak? the entire world hates us already, you can't intimidate and bully the world forever. If you're talking about terrorism, ever hear of blowback? the perpetuation of war has to stop somewhere and goodness gracious, Ron Paul actually realizes this and sees the fault in America's meddling. Damn straight we better pack up and bring our troops home, we shouldn't be in others' homes in the first place.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Open2Truth
 


I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, far from it, but I'll post my view of the outcome to his presidency.

I agree with members here, that obviously if he assumes the presidency, in that highly hypothetical scenario, he won't achieve all the goals he sort after in all his years as congressman. He won't keep all his promises, and I guess that's to be expected as any president. There has never been a president to my knowledge that has fully kept up with their promises. As for how far Ron Paul will get? Not very far in my opinion.

He'll move to quickly withdraw troops from Iraq, Afghanistan and pull american involvenment out of Libya... although by that time most troops would have been withdrawn under this current administration, so that will be a moot.

He'll probably move to end all the foreign bases from overseas, and to some extent he'll be successful. He'll get the irrelevant bases out of Canada, Spain, Australia, Bulgaria... but the major bases in Germany, South korea and the Britain, they'll stay. He won't touch the bloated military budget in my opinion, he is very strong behind defense, even if it's over sized and overpriced.

He'll make no hesitation to remove the patriot act, that will be something I'd give him credit for.

He won't touch medicare because he'll know the end result, and no, this isn't public backlash necessarily, more on the lines of how he'll look once he fails to get any private insurers to come to the table to get it privatized. He'll leave it as is. Medicaid he'll verywell remove, but the end result won't be positive as millions will be left out again.

Ron Paul will move to repeal Roe V wade, he won't get very far. He will get the million women march at his doorstep.

He'll propose the idea of eliminating minimum wage, and he'll try and do this by compromising in other ways, maybe he'll cut eliminate taxes for those who earn less than a certain amount, or something of that nature... but he won't get far. By the end of his administration minimum wage will probably still be in place.

All in all, I think most of his ideas will not come to fruitition, and towards the end of his administration, he'll leave the country in a similar state it is now... more or less. His administration will mirror that of Reagans, no substance, just image. I think by that time Paulers would have blamed corrupted washington for keeping the saviour down from achieving his presidency.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


I have traveled the world, both as a tourist and as a Soldier. I’ve only met a few people who hate Americans, though I’ve met quite a few who hate our government. There also towns in Germany who do not want the Kasernes closed as they bring money and employment to their towns. Even the Bosnian government petitioned ours to keep US Soldiers there. But we still handed that mission over to the EU.

The two points I posited have been only addresses in a cursory manner by him. I want to see a he would implement them. RP is smart enough to know that for every action, there is a reaction.

With the current actual unemployment rate at 22.7%, conducting mass layoffs and having Soldiers returning and the Military being downsized on top of it would probably crush our economy making RP look even worse than this current Administration. That is why I say it has to be conducted in phases over time. Give people a chance to plan their future.

As for terrorism…there will always be terrorism, regardless of how many times we apologize and how nice we play.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Ok, that is you, here is me.

I rather start limiting waste now instead of always living in constant fear of the next market crash, that is a definite fact if we don't start cutting our spending.

I rather be out of wars than in wars, spending doesn't need to go to military bases so I rather have it go to necessary places.

Terrorism is a monster that we created and we now pay for, literally.

If America stopped meddling, maybe we can actually get along with the whole world.


but I'm glad people here are actually talking about his policies and not some illuminati TPTB b.s. that stuff is getting old.
edit on 6-9-2011 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join