After I Stumbleupon-ed a Youtube video of Ron Paul speaking about the auto bailout, I decided to check him out on Wikipedia because he made some interesting points.
Not to say all of his points were good but a few are worth highlighting.
Why should honest, hard working decent Americans bailout people who have made mistakes?
You may agree in terms of the bailouts, but this is an essential part of a welfare state or system. Our taxes would go towards people who are un-employed, retired, disabled and generally very poor. In terms of the auto bailout it would be money going towards the workers and helping with their healthcare and pensions. You can't commit $700 billion to investment bankers who made the mistakes by their own greed and foolish mistakes (a lot of mistakes within the property market) and then ignore a measely $20 billion that would be going mainly towards workers.
But anyway I don't quite support a welfare state like they have back in Britain since most un-employed people are too lazy to get a job so they rely on benefits. However of course pensions for the elderly and disabled would be an important one.
We are on the road to nationalisation.
Annoyingly I don't know the full situation and have a limited (very) understanding of the economy. How I see it is that the companies that are receiving money aren't being controlled by the government, it is merely a helping hand. But I suppose how I could see it as a way towards nationalisation.
Ron Paul goes onto say that it is un American in the sense of economic freedom. By bailing out these companies you are forgiving them of their mistakes, a part of economic freedom would be that companies fail out of effects from the system and also due to their own fault. It would part of the system. But with the bail outs the government is supporting them and giving them another chance and a helping hand to the economy at large. I really don't know where I stand on the bailouts.
After going to Wikipedia and looking up Ron Paul and here is a brief chunk from the Wikipedia page:
Paul has been described as conservative, Constitutionalist, and libertarian. He advocates a foreign policy of non-intervention, having voted against actions such as the Iraq War Resolution, but in favor of force against terrorists in Afghanistan. He favors withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations, citing the dangers of foreign entanglements to national sovereignty. Having pledged never to raise taxes, he has long advocated ending the federal income tax, scaling back government spending, abolishing most federal agencies, and removing military bases and troops from foreign soil; he favors hard money and opposes the Federal Reserve. He also opposes the Patriot Act, the federal War on Drugs, No Child Left Behind, and gun regulation. Paul is strongly pro-life and has introduced bills to negate Roe v. Wade, as he believes the Supreme Court has usurped each state's right to allow, regulate, or ban abortion.
Some of those things I don't know anything about, but fundamentally he seems to be one of the more constitutional types of politicians I've come across. I disagree with his non-intervention stance though, of course the War in Iraq is unjustified and flawed. However with the size of America and great potential it must go out and be a true force for good. Leaving NATO would be impossible, even though the Cold War is over. But leaving the UN wouldn't seem like too bad an idea, never been a big fan of it anyway.
I've noticed with myself though that while I support current liberalism, I also support right wing nationalism authoritarian givernment. Guess that makes me a fascist then. But I'll I have these two supporting ideologies which pretty much conflict each other, reason is that I don't want anything half arsed. Either intrude on a our private completely (I honestly wouldn't care if the government spy on me, life is boring enough so I feel sorry for anyone who would have to watch me).
Meanwhile USA is still waiting for Obama, be interesting to see what (if any) changes he brings. I thought he was going for the whole left wing liberal thing but his administration has been made up of slightly centre right people who have been in former governments. Yes, it's great he has experienced people but the left wing liberals are upset. There's just no pleasing some people.
Watched a small bit of Chris Matthews last night, not a huge fan of him but my parents watch it occasionally (not so much anymore now that the election is over). Anyway there was a guy on it who was a Republican advisor or something like that talking about Cheney's statement about how they would still have gone to war regardless of WMDs being found. This chap was sayinig it was a justified war since Iraq had the capabilities of WMD weapons, effectively saying they had the potential to have the potential. I really don't know how you can support the mess without WMDs even though that case is very weak. As if Saddam were going to go around letting loose WMDs into surrounding countries and targetting Israel. The amount of money spent, lives lost and just the general lack of support for the war says it all. But somehow that guy said on national live television he supported Cheney's statement. Jeez.