Ron Paul for President

Disley · December 24th, 2007, 06:16 PM

Quote:

"I put them in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back," said Paul, who likened it to taking a tax credit. "I'm against the tax system, but I take all my tax credits. I want to get their money back for the people."

Isn't that what you'd expect from your representative. Or would you prefer Bush to give it to the Iraqis or his big oil buddies.

The Real Bingo · December 24th, 2007, 06:19 PM

It's hypocritical - he wants smaller government and less spending, but at the same time, he's participating in pork barrel spending.

Disley · December 24th, 2007, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Real Bingo

It's hypocritical - he wants smaller government and less spending, but at the same time, he's participating in pork barrel spending.

So what should he do under the present system, refuse to help his electorate,
and keep you happy.

SiliconJon · December 24th, 2007, 07:02 PM

While I find many of these analyses to be sound and logical, I feel it may be even more sly than first glance.

This both worries me and intrigues me. He is indeed successfully "stealing" the money stolen from his citizens, as he is a found believer that the income tax is unconstitutional, and thus a fraud as our law states anything unconstitutional is null and void as an attempted law. Let us not forget that. What intrigues me is at first I, too, was confused, but there's a level of brilliance that amazes me about it. He is managing to both stand upon his oath and provide back to his constituents money that has undoubtedly been stolen from them by writing their share into the measures. The man is a more successful politician than I previously gave him credit for, and of course that worries me. A brilliant politician is a powerful leader, and the stage has been set for power misuse unlike any other point in American history.

Now, I need to submit my reasoning to a few professional analysts [no TIMO volunteers, please] to ensure I'm not rationalizing...

SiliconJon · December 24th, 2007, 07:12 PM

A good logical read with room for intelligent rebuttal:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/r...istSrc=Y&art=1

SiliconJon · December 24th, 2007, 07:22 PM

Also to be noted, Ron Paul is not the fastest on-the-feet thinker. It is noticeable that he puts much thought into his reasoning and actions - we should all be so wise when making important decisions. It shows when he's under the grill, though, as it's breakneck speed on some of the boob tube.

I will continue to apply critical thought to my representatives, even if I am backing them. I will also inform them of my concerns. The reason for electing as you see fit is not to eliminate this chore but allow for a representative that will hear, understand, and appropriately note such concerns. I still hold Dr. Paul in the top rank given my current understanding of my point of view in the world...

MTAtech · December 24th, 2007, 08:53 PM

I have to agree with Bingo. One can't be against government spending except when that spending is on himself. Cutting spending starts at home and if R. Paul wants us to think that he has strong principles, he should be able to explain that to his constitutents and if they want to elect someone else with a different view he should accept that too.

I don't buy the argument that if he didn't ask for the money it would be spent by someone else. No, spending would be lower.

The Real Bingo · December 24th, 2007, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disley

So what should he do under the present system, refuse to help his electorate,
and keep you happy.

He wouldn't be refusing to help his electorate - he'd be sticking up for his principles.

And this brings me to another point: he bases a lot of what he says on the premise that states should have more power. Basically, he's an enabler in this situation. He wants a smaller federal government, but he's putting in pork barrel spending that sends federal dollars to his constituency, which is only giving the federal government more power and control over his district. If he was concerned about it, and he stuck to his principles, he'd encourage the state government to help his district out.

As much as you or someone else may reason away what he does, it's a matter of principle, which I like to think I have, and is something I'd like to see in an elected official.

However, like SJ said, I still don't see any other candidate who I like better...so for me, I'll have to, reservedly, stick with Dr. Paul.

MTAtech · December 24th, 2007, 10:08 PM

Ron Paul's proposals sound appealing from 40,000 ft. but are not practical at ground level. Sure, recall all the foreign troops and close foreign bases. Then what happens when an emergency requires deploying troops far away? We don't have a ready force able to respond.

Eliminate the income tax and replace it with a flat tax. The rich will pay less while the burden goes up for everyone else. 'Oh, but we're going to cut spending too.' Tell me which programs are going to be cut. Just about every program has a reason to exist. Those that don't, don't add much to the tax burden.

EXreaction · December 24th, 2007, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disley

How long do you think he'd remain a congressman for his district if he didn't try to get the money for the projects his constituents wanted.
It's commonsense not hypocrisy. He has to work within the system now in place.
Russert asked to many questions about Pauls presidential run in 1988, it's hardly relevant to his platform 19 yrs later.

I've tried to think about it that way as well. But if he was doing it to stay a congressman I do not think he would vote against it.

I agree with SJ here, I think this, if anything, is just a tiny piece of the puzzle. But above all others I'd still vote for him right now, if he would become president and was planning something bad, well, could it be any worse than anyone else getting in and doing what they want?