The First Ron Paul Thread From Me

So, it seems that Ron Paul is known as Dr. No for his policies against unauthorized use of tax money. In some ways I agree with him, I do feel that government should spend far less money than it does, and it should be spent more on our National Defense, infrastructure, and law system.

However, where I differ from him is that I'm not against the government helping people. Because, let's face it, the government is now making enough money to feed everybody in America. The current budget is $2,6 trillion dollars, which means that there is absolutely no reason to deny people food stamps who need it. After all, there is only 313 million people in America today.

So I guess the real question is why can't we feed and help people? Well, mostly it's because the politicians are hungry for votes and must grab as much as they can for their people, and nobody else. I really don't understand this reasoning myself. Or it's the corporate elite putting pressure to get themselves bailouts or some such damnable thing for them. But I truly don't understand why we're so strapped for cash. We really shouldn't be, and without the petty bickering of the greedy politicians, we would be able to feed everybody. There simply is no real need for anymore money. It just needs to be spent in wiser ways and with less waste and keep the greed out of it.

But the real point is, on what specific policies and programs to do you agree with? I would appreciate some details please.

I am a Paul supporter, but I'm not in the habit of getting into political discussions. Nobody ever wins.

So I'll just say this: I believe his plan is that the states, not the feds, are responsible for taking care of their unfortunate. That's pretty much the entirety of his policy: The federal government has very limited authorities and responsibilities, and the states have a great deal more....

reply to post by EvilSadamClone

However, where I differ from him is that I'm not against the government helping people. Because, let's face it, the government is now making enough money to feed everybody in America. The current budget is $2,6 trillion dollars, which means that there is absolutely no reason to deny people food stamps who need it. After all, there is only 313 million people in America today.

As another poster already addressed - Paul has no problem with helping people. He has a problem with big government ostensibly claiming the ability and desire to help people, because honestly...they fail to an amazing degree. Inefficiency, corruption, waste, and ineptitude abound.

And where exactly do you think the government GETS all that money? In very large part, from us. Why not just let us keep more of our own money to take care of ourselves, clear the air of stifling regulations that choke the life out of us making our own futures (as these tend to accomplish not much good while insulating the actual offenders), and stop wasting even more of that money they take from us in the first place by waging wars against our own personal decisions (a la the drug war, which wastes lives and money yet somehow also results in higher use rates, higher purity, lower cost, and proves itself an abject failure)?

So I guess the real question is why can't we feed and help people? Well, mostly it's because the politicians are hungry for votes and must grab as much as they can for their people, and nobody else. I really don't understand this reasoning myself. Or it's the corporate elite putting pressure to get themselves bailouts or some such damnable thing for them. But I truly don't understand why we're so strapped for cash. We really shouldn't be, and without the petty bickering of the greedy politicians, we would be able to feed everybody. There simply is no real need for anymore money. It just needs to be spent in wiser ways and with less waste and keep the greed out of it.

We could easily feed and help people - if we weren't taxing the same people on various levels and through various schemes, then attacking the same people for moral crusades. If we weren't militarily aggressive, or so insecure that we had to have a military budget equal to or greater than the rest of the world combined. If those in government weren't so corrupt, and our regulatory climate was reasonable and effective (instead of bloated and counterproductive).

You disagree with Paul on this - on the surface - but Paul just sees the inefficiency of government and that things might be better handled on a more-local level.

But the real point is, on what specific policies and programs to do you agree with? I would appreciate some details please.

That question needs to be phrased or clarified better, and if it is, depending on how the thread develops I might provide my thoughts further. Take care.