Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    8
  • comments
    10
  • views
    4,782

Ron Paul

Sign in to follow this  
Foggers

183 views

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.

Sign in to follow this  


6 Comments


Recommended Comments

I agree with you completely on the first bit. I think any sort of bailout is a mistake, but if we're going to give money to someone it should be the consumers. Take the Detroit situation for example. Congress wants to give the Big Three money so they can file for Chapter 11 three months from now as opposed to next week. Will it make people more willing to purchase their cars? No. If you want to prop up the auto industry, you should give money to consumers to purchase their cars, not to the automakers themselves so they can limp on awhile longer and nothing else changes.

As for bailing out companies/people who made mistakes, we shouldn't under any circumstances. There's no such thing as "too big to fail." Business failure is just as important as business success. It tells Chrysler that maybe it should create some benchmarks based on Toyota's practices. Failure tells you what you're doing wrong. If the gov't props up every industry that fails, it just encourages the same inefficient behavior. I think if the Big Three filed for Chapter 11 it would be a good thing. The companies would be restructured, management would hopefully be fired, and assets would be sold off. Those assets (production facilities, etc) would be bought up by entrepreneurs who would try to make cars more efficiently than their predecessors. The auto plants don't disappear. The jobs don't disappear. They just change hands and it leads to greater efficiency in most cases. You sort of touched on this. It's all part of the free market "system."

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.

From my understanding, Congress was planning on appointing a "Car Czar" from within Congress. This person would basically take the place of a whole board of directors and make unilateral decisions for the Detroit automakers in terms of what cars to make, how to make them, etc. That sounds like nationalization to me.

I discovered Ron Paul a few months back. As of this moment, he's the only honest politician I know of. Look at his track record. He sticks to his guns despite the derision and laughter. He's a man of principle and he does what he thinks is right, not what is convenient. All he wants to do is guide the country back to the principles of the Constitution (which this country is built on but seems to ignore completely nowadays) so that all Americans can enjoy the personal freedoms that our Founding Fathers envisioned.

If you want to learn more about Dr. Paul and his supporters, you should check out http://www.campaignforliberty.com/. I'm a conservative, so I don't know if more left-mined people will find it palatable, but they say over and over that liberty is universal and Constitutional principles can mesh with many different political viewpoints. If you do check it out, I'd love to hear your reaction.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I checked out the website, a lot of interesting articles and ideas. The only thing I don't agree with it about though is the isolationist ideas and withdrawing US troops from bases in foreign countries. In our time, the world has gotten a lot smaller in terms of international politics and co-operation so America really can be force for good. But I disagree with the UN as they seem a bit useless. I was surprised to read that Ron Paul wasn't invited to the Republican Party primary election debate on Fox which is a real shame, we need more politicians like him. Honesty and a good, consistent voting record.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I used to be of the same opinion, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized isolationism is a good idea. People hate America because we have military bases on holy ground and just generally meddle in others' affairs regardless of whether they want our help. Then we have to increase our presence around the world to combat the terrorist organizations that crop up because people hate us. It's a vicious, escalating cycle. I mean, when's the last time we didn't have a policy of sticking our hand in everything? Not for many decades. Maybe it wouldn't hurt to try a noninterventionalist policy and see how it works.

The other big issue for me is that we don't take care of ourselves before we try and take care of others. Our borders are porous, and we can't really afford to be spending billions of dollars abroad with our economic troubles at home.

Share this comment


Link to comment

"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.".

Cheeky so&so. Most UK unemployed seek work, lead swingers and useless layabouts do exist but by no means are the majority.

You need a welfare state if only to provide decent working class cancer healthcare etc.

Good blog tho, keep up the good work.

Andrew

Share this comment


Link to comment

Yeah, welfare state is beneficial for those who need it. I guess I just believed the Daily Mail headlines :rolleyes: but don't worry, I don't read it all the time and nor have I even bought it.

But something does need to be done about those that just sit on the dole for a long time. I heard of an idea which would get them doing community service, which would be nice.

Share this comment


Link to comment

The welfare state is beneficial for business as well in various ways. Nationalised healthcare saves business a fortune; providing unemployment benefits allows workers more time to find a suitable job rather than having to jump into the first thing that comes along (thus wasting human resources) as well as reducing crime; and so forth. Indeed, the current welfare system in the UK is unapologetically designed around the needs of business (it's what the 'Third Way' is all about), forcing more and more people into the labour market and thus suppressing wages, with tax credits being handed out so that business doesn't have to pay a decent wage.

The main problem with all this, and with the popular suggestion to 'get a job, hippy!' is that there are far, far more unemployed people than there are jobs -- and there were even at the peak of the economic boom. Take into consideration than most jobs aren't suitable for those on benefits (due to required qualifications, location, etc) and we have a rather large problem. Indeed, the ever-ignored problem of job supply has been demonstrated quite nicely by the recent crash. Have 2 million people in Britain suddenly just got lazy and that's why they're freshly out of work and on benefits? Or has the economic downturn made them redundant and left them with little option.

There's much more to it all than that, of course, but the point is to demonstrate that the welfare state is a lot more complex than supporting 'lazy unemployed people', and unemployment itself is a lot more complex than said people being lazy.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...