26 Things Non-Paul Voters Are Basically Saying

[riotgrl]

My real concern about Paul is his economic policy. I personally think the government has gotten too big - we have multiple agencies overseeing things that could easily be handled by one. But Paul wants to take us back to economic policy before the Progressive reforms kicked in under Teddy Roosevelt. Those policies allowed businesses to reap huge profits and was as close to true capitalism as you can get outside of a book; but always at the expense of the worker. We could certainly gain back manufacturing jobs but at what pay scale? What about safety and protection in the workplace - he wants to ax OSHA. Progressive reforms were designed to strike a balance between the era of no regulations on business and government intervening to help the rest of us. Ron Paul's economic policies, IF he got elected and IF he could even convince COngress to go along with (which if he got elected I seriously doubt he would be able to get COngress behind most of his legislation which seems to me would make him a do nothing president) would cripple the middle class not help them. total dergulation and allowing business to run the way he is proposing would take us back to the 19th century. Which is not what I would want. LIfe in the 19th century was great for the Carnegie's and Rockefeller's but most people were extremely poor and there was a very small middle class. Workers had no minimum wage, no safe work environment, and certainly no benefits of any sort. Based on Paul's own words he would get rid of any agency that would help the worker (OSHA, minimum wage standards,etc) Government has gotten too big but we need our government as a buffer between the worker and the business owner (and I really mean big business; small business owners are a completely different story, usually) so we get a fair shake.

[Wilds]

My real concern about Paul is his economic policy. I personally think the government has gotten too big - we have multiple agencies overseeing things that could easily be handled by one. But Paul wants to take us back to economic policy before the Progressive reforms kicked in under Teddy Roosevelt. Those policies allowed businesses to reap huge profits and was as close to true capitalism as you can get outside of a book; but always at the expense of the worker. We could certainly gain back manufacturing jobs but at what pay scale? What about safety and protection in the workplace - he wants to ax OSHA. Progressive reforms were designed to strike a balance between the era of no regulations on business and government intervening to help the rest of us. Ron Paul's economic policies, IF he got elected and IF he could even convince COngress to go along with (which if he got elected I seriously doubt he would be able to get COngress behind most of his legislation which seems to me would make him a do nothing president) would cripple the middle class not help them. total dergulation and allowing business to run the way he is proposing would take us back to the 19th century. Which is not what I would want. LIfe in the 19th century was great for the Carnegie's and Rockefeller's but most people were extremely poor and there was a very small middle class. Workers had no minimum wage, no safe work environment, and certainly no benefits of any sort. Based on Paul's own words he would get rid of any agency that would help the worker (OSHA, minimum wage standards,etc) Government has gotten too big but we need our government as a buffer between the worker and the business owner (and I really mean big business; small business owners are a completely different story, usually) so we get a fair shake.

Good points, thought out and open minded. If all people had this ability on this forum, we would see a lot less, of the "I saw something on some show about him being a flip flopper, but I can't remember what the show was, what he flip flopped on, or really if they were even talking about Paul...."

so thank you.

My history is I've always been independent, but I've voted Democrat since I was 18. Clinton twice, Gore, Kerry, and Obama.

I've always felt that social programs are noble and if we are going to have a 1 party system where both parties are about big government, I'd rather the money be thrown away on social programs than on military ones.

But really both sides are the same, both pro-war, and both pro-spending. Obama is as much of a war hawk as Bush, sadly. I really wish it was different, but it isn't.

Obama is as much about stripping citizens of their liberty as was Bush. That is really disappointing to me.

But I've come to realize that Ron Paul is different, and as a far more liberal than conservative voter, I'm fully behind Paul.

First and foremost, I think the best thing about Ron Paul's Economic policy is he would NOT undo any of the Social safety net programs. A. He couldn't, and B. He Wouldn't. He will begin to VERY slowly phase them out, mostly with opt out type of options.

A switch won't be flicked with everyone counting on all those programs out on their asses the next day.

For example California, where I live, has many programs to help people, unemployment, welfare programs, and has the ability to offer protections for things like minimum wage (as they do now).

So if the Federal Government was out of it, all of those protections would still exist.

And this is really at the heart of what Paul is saying. Let the Federal government function as it should, and let the States take care of most everything.

right now we are in a Corporate world, where government is manipulated to do the bidding of these corporations and their lobbyists. Everything is run through them. As the government expands, so do the Corporate tentacles that control it all and hurt the American people.

Paul would be able to accomplish a lot, even without Congressional approval, but it would be slow and steady.

But some things would happen quick. We would stop expanding our empire, stop nation building, stop allowing young American's to die in unconstitutionally, undeclared wars.

He would eliminate all those presidential mandates that are unconstitutional and take away our rights.

He would make a real dent in some of the bureaucratic Departments that do much more harm than good.

And he would audit the Fed and see what is going on there.

I feel that strong social programs will thrive under Paul, at the State level. Charity will continue, through the private sector. The Free market will be free, but regulated by the courts, and through the States.

And all of our taxes will go down. (and probably up at the State level).

Sorry about all the thoughts, just sort of typing off the top of my head.

In closing Paul won't take us back into the 1800's, but he will guide us out of this un-sustainable bubble busting inflationary world we currently live in.

[inlet13]

I agree with Wilds. I don't share riotgrl's concerns, but she does a good job of listing them in a cogent, clear manner. That's rare in these parts.

My real concern about Paul is his economic policy. I personally think the government has gotten too big - we have multiple agencies overseeing things that could easily be handled by one. But Paul wants to take us back to economic policy before the Progressive reforms kicked in under Teddy Roosevelt. Those policies allowed businesses to reap huge profits and was as close to true capitalism as you can get outside of a book; but always at the expense of the worker. We could certainly gain back manufacturing jobs but at what pay scale? What about safety and protection in the workplace - he wants to ax OSHA. Progressive reforms were designed to strike a balance between the era of no regulations on business and government intervening to help the rest of us. Ron Paul's economic policies, IF he got elected and IF he could even convince COngress to go along with (which if he got elected I seriously doubt he would be able to get COngress behind most of his legislation which seems to me would make him a do nothing president) would cripple the middle class not help them. total dergulation and allowing business to run the way he is proposing would take us back to the 19th century. Which is not what I would want. LIfe in the 19th century was great for the Carnegie's and Rockefeller's but most people were extremely poor and there was a very small middle class. Workers had no minimum wage, no safe work environment, and certainly no benefits of any sort. Based on Paul's own words he would get rid of any agency that would help the worker (OSHA, minimum wage standards,etc) Government has gotten too big but we need our government as a buffer between the worker and the business owner (and I really mean big business; small business owners are a completely different story, usually) so we get a fair shake.

I don't share your concerns with regards to the minimum wage. This is one area where roughly nine out of ten economists agree. That's incredibly rare. Speaking as an economist, we rarely agree on macro issues. Basically, the consensus says increasing the minimum wage creates unemployment. In fact, not only does it create unemployment, it creates unemployment for the poor (those who would otherwise work for less than that minimum wage). We do little good by pretending to stand on the moral hill, saying no one should make below $X, when those who would take less just end up unemployed due to that policy.

In my humble opinion, our society has issues with thinking about labor markets. We tend to think that workers don't really have a choice when they sign a contract to take a job. The reality is, they have as much of a choice in the matter as the employer does. Their wage and employment is decided in a market of it's own. Now, certainly that market can be altered by macro factors (like recessions or booms). But, it's a market nonetheless. My overall point is, people choose to accept a pay for a job. Therefore, in my opinion, we are not morally superior if we forbid that choice because we believe we know better.

As for his stance on OSHA, his issues partially had to do with the fact that OSHA was attempting to exercise regulatory authority over home-based work sites. Employers would be forced to inspect employees homes if they telecommuted. This would have crippled telecommuting. This, in his own words, would be "harmful for the environment". Why? Well, because the former telecommuters would then have to return to commuting to work, increasing congestion and potentially increasing pollution. Further, the checking of one's residence is an invasion of privacy. In this sense, his major concern was in regards to the respect OSHA has for private property. He's not sure they have constitutional authority to regulate private property (or private business for that matter).

Further on OSHA, here's a quote: "I would remind my colleagues that conceding the principle that the only way to protect worker safety is by means of a large bureaucracy with the power to impose a “one-size fits all” model on every workplace in America ensures that defenders of the free market will be always on the defensive, trying to reign in the bureaucracy from going “too far” rather than advancing a positive, pro-freedom agenda." He goes on to cite some of OSHA's practices such as "force landscapers to use $200 gas cans instead of $5 cans or fining a construction company $7,000 dollars because their employees jumped in a trench to rescue a trapped man without first putting on their OSHA-approved hard hats; or fine a company because it failed to warn employees not to eat copier toner!" Finally, Ron Paul believes in workplace safety, but believes there's no evidence that OSHA's invasiveness has increased workplace safety. For example, workplace fatalities were falling more dramatically before the creation of OSHA, then they have fallen since.

All in all, I favor his approach, but do understand your reservations. I would ask you... if you admit "government has gotten too big" how else would you handle shrinking it? Certainly, President Obama is not going to get us there. I'd say the other Republican candidates won't either.

Admittedly, Ron Paul is one man. You eloquently pointed out that he may have trouble enacting a large amount of his policies. As voters, sometimes, we don't thoroughly understand your great point there. So, my overall response to you is... why not try Ron Paul for four years? Sure, he may be a bit far reaching in his hopes on economic policy, but like you said... he'll be constrained by congress. He won't get to do everything he wants. One thing is for sure though, he would try to minimize the government that to quote you "has gotten too big". Would he be successful in every case? I think we'd all agree, "no". The President is constrained by congress. But, at least he'd try. Personally, I don't think any of the other candidates really would try.

[Sludge Factory]

Man...I just wanted to chime in here and mention how these last three posts are a breath of fresh air. It is nice to see people debating each other in a civil manner.

[riotgrl]

My real concern about Paul is his economic policy. I personally think the government has gotten too big - we have multiple agencies overseeing things that could easily be handled by one. But Paul wants to take us back to economic policy before the Progressive reforms kicked in under Teddy Roosevelt. Those policies allowed businesses to reap huge profits and was as close to true capitalism as you can get outside of a book; but always at the expense of the worker. We could certainly gain back manufacturing jobs but at what pay scale? What about safety and protection in the workplace - he wants to ax OSHA. Progressive reforms were designed to strike a balance between the era of no regulations on business and government intervening to help the rest of us. Ron Paul's economic policies, IF he got elected and IF he could even convince COngress to go along with (which if he got elected I seriously doubt he would be able to get COngress behind most of his legislation which seems to me would make him a do nothing president) would cripple the middle class not help them. total dergulation and allowing business to run the way he is proposing would take us back to the 19th century. Which is not what I would want. LIfe in the 19th century was great for the Carnegie's and Rockefeller's but most people were extremely poor and there was a very small middle class. Workers had no minimum wage, no safe work environment, and certainly no benefits of any sort. Based on Paul's own words he would get rid of any agency that would help the worker (OSHA, minimum wage standards,etc) Government has gotten too big but we need our government as a buffer between the worker and the business owner (and I really mean big business; small business owners are a completely different story, usually) so we get a fair shake.

Good points, thought out and open minded. If all people had this ability on this forum, we would see a lot less, of the "I saw something on some show about him being a flip flopper, but I can't remember what the show was, what he flip flopped on, or really if they were even talking about Paul...."

so thank you.

My history is I've always been independent, but I've voted Democrat since I was 18. Clinton twice, Gore, Kerry, and Obama.

I've always felt that social programs are noble and if we are going to have a 1 party system where both parties are about big government, I'd rather the money be thrown away on social programs than on military ones.

But really both sides are the same, both pro-war, and both pro-spending. Obama is as much of a war hawk as Bush, sadly. I really wish it was different, but it isn't.

Obama is as much about stripping citizens of their liberty as was Bush. That is really disappointing to me.

But I've come to realize that Ron Paul is different, and as a far more liberal than conservative voter, I'm fully behind Paul.

First and foremost, I think the best thing about Ron Paul's Economic policy is he would NOT undo any of the Social safety net programs. A. He couldn't, and B. He Wouldn't. He will begin to VERY slowly phase them out, mostly with opt out type of options.

A switch won't be flicked with everyone counting on all those programs out on their asses the next day.

For example California, where I live, has many programs to help people, unemployment, welfare programs, and has the ability to offer protections for things like minimum wage (as they do now).

So if the Federal Government was out of it, all of those protections would still exist.

And this is really at the heart of what Paul is saying. Let the Federal government function as it should, and let the States take care of most everything.

right now we are in a Corporate world, where government is manipulated to do the bidding of these corporations and their lobbyists. Everything is run through them. As the government expands, so do the Corporate tentacles that control it all and hurt the American people.

Paul would be able to accomplish a lot, even without Congressional approval, but it would be slow and steady.

But some things would happen quick. We would stop expanding our empire, stop nation building, stop allowing young American's to die in unconstitutionally, undeclared wars.

He would eliminate all those presidential mandates that are unconstitutional and take away our rights.

He would make a real dent in some of the bureaucratic Departments that do much more harm than good.

And he would audit the Fed and see what is going on there.

I feel that strong social programs will thrive under Paul, at the State level. Charity will continue, through the private sector. The Free market will be free, but regulated by the courts, and through the States.

And all of our taxes will go down. (and probably up at the State level).

Sorry about all the thoughts, just sort of typing off the top of my head.

In closing Paul won't take us back into the 1800's, but he will guide us out of this un-sustainable bubble busting inflationary world we currently live in.

I agree with many of your points. I too have always been a registered independent but lean liberal however my economic beliefs usually coincide more with libertarian (if you can believe that after my post I definitely believe that the federal government has overstepped its bounds - particularly with many of the departments (education, etc) that have been created. And I certainly think that as citizens we could get more satisfaction from our state government than federal on several issues. You mention being from California and that your state has many safeguards in place that would pick up the slack if the federal government ended or slowly phased out social welfare programs. My state does as well; however, I am from Kentucky and we are one of the poorest states in the nation. We barely get anything accomplished with the small amount of income we generate. I worry about states like mine and how we would fare. From the information I have studied, (and sorry I can't remember the source off the top of my head) most tax dollars are generated in the wealthier regions of the country (particularly the Northeast) while most of those tax dollars are sent to the poorer regions like the South. On the one hand, maybe it would force us to somehow, some way generate more income but I am not sure how we would do that.

Honestly, I have seriously looked at Ron Paul and haven't completely ruled out voting for him if the opportunity presents itself but I do have serious doubts about where we would go under a Paul presidency.

Also, thanks for the kind words about being open minded and thoughtful. I was on another fan forum and left because it was so toxic so I was very hesitant to join another but I do love me some PJ!

[SweetChildofMine]

Come to my state where fierce democratic Politics for over 100 years have instituted fantastic Progressive programs with surprisingly amazing results and benefits to it citizens are squashed in the matter of moments by GOP party, I fear you would have great disdain. A surplus budget and a projected surplus budget GONE! People fired from their jobs because people like you think the governments overstepped their bounds. Just to say the least. Tell me how that feels when it comes in wrecks your wrecks communities like a Trojan Horse. I will laugh in your face and say I told you so.

You dont listen. You do not comprehend the destruction to once were fablously great places to live. You tell me? They are all the same to me. Call me what you will like.

I said, I refuse to particpate your long winded pompous arguments about nothing while at the same thing happens ...nothing gets done. Its hilarious.

The man is puppet and a stinky flip flopper.

Get real.

[riotgrl]

I agree with Wilds. I don't share riotgrl's concerns, but she does a good job of listing them in a cogent, clear manner. That's rare in these parts.

My real concern about Paul is his economic policy. I personally think the government has gotten too big - we have multiple agencies overseeing things that could easily be handled by one. But Paul wants to take us back to economic policy before the Progressive reforms kicked in under Teddy Roosevelt. Those policies allowed businesses to reap huge profits and was as close to true capitalism as you can get outside of a book; but always at the expense of the worker. We could certainly gain back manufacturing jobs but at what pay scale? What about safety and protection in the workplace - he wants to ax OSHA. Progressive reforms were designed to strike a balance between the era of no regulations on business and government intervening to help the rest of us. Ron Paul's economic policies, IF he got elected and IF he could even convince COngress to go along with (which if he got elected I seriously doubt he would be able to get COngress behind most of his legislation which seems to me would make him a do nothing president) would cripple the middle class not help them. total dergulation and allowing business to run the way he is proposing would take us back to the 19th century. Which is not what I would want. LIfe in the 19th century was great for the Carnegie's and Rockefeller's but most people were extremely poor and there was a very small middle class. Workers had no minimum wage, no safe work environment, and certainly no benefits of any sort. Based on Paul's own words he would get rid of any agency that would help the worker (OSHA, minimum wage standards,etc) Government has gotten too big but we need our government as a buffer between the worker and the business owner (and I really mean big business; small business owners are a completely different story, usually) so we get a fair shake.

I don't share your concerns with regards to the minimum wage. This is one area where roughly nine out of ten economists agree. That's incredibly rare. Speaking as an economist, we rarely agree on macro issues. Basically, the consensus says increasing the minimum wage creates unemployment. In fact, not only does it create unemployment, it creates unemployment for the poor (those who would otherwise work for less than that minimum wage). We do little good by pretending to stand on the moral hill, saying no one should make below $X, when those who would take less just end up unemployed due to that policy.

In my humble opinion, our society has issues with thinking about labor markets. We tend to think that workers don't really have a choice when they sign a contract to take a job. The reality is, they have as much of a choice in the matter as the employer does. Their wage and employment is decided in a market of it's own. Now, certainly that market can be altered by macro factors (like recessions or booms). But, it's a market nonetheless. My overall point is, people choose to accept a pay for a job. Therefore, in my opinion, we are not morally superior if we forbid that choice because we believe we know better.

As for his stance on OSHA, his issues partially had to do with the fact that OSHA was attempting to exercise regulatory authority over home-based work sites. Employers would be forced to inspect employees homes if they telecommuted. This would have crippled telecommuting. This, in his own words, would be "harmful for the environment". Why? Well, because the former telecommuters would then have to return to commuting to work, increasing congestion and potentially increasing pollution. Further, the checking of one's residence is an invasion of privacy. In this sense, his major concern was in regards to the respect OSHA has for private property. He's not sure they have constitutional authority to regulate private property (or private business for that matter).

Further on OSHA, here's a quote: "I would remind my colleagues that conceding the principle that the only way to protect worker safety is by means of a large bureaucracy with the power to impose a “one-size fits all” model on every workplace in America ensures that defenders of the free market will be always on the defensive, trying to reign in the bureaucracy from going “too far” rather than advancing a positive, pro-freedom agenda." He goes on to cite some of OSHA's practices such as "force landscapers to use $200 gas cans instead of $5 cans or fining a construction company $7,000 dollars because their employees jumped in a trench to rescue a trapped man without first putting on their OSHA-approved hard hats; or fine a company because it failed to warn employees not to eat copier toner!" Finally, Ron Paul believes in workplace safety, but believes there's no evidence that OSHA's invasiveness has increased workplace safety. For example, workplace fatalities were falling more dramatically before the creation of OSHA, then they have fallen since.

All in all, I favor his approach, but do understand your reservations. I would ask you... if you admit "government has gotten too big" how else would you handle shrinking it? Certainly, President Obama is not going to get us there. I'd say the other Republican candidates won't either.

Admittedly, Ron Paul is one man. You eloquently pointed out that he may have trouble enacting a large amount of his policies. As voters, sometimes, we don't thoroughly understand your great point there. So, my overall response to you is... why not try Ron Paul for four years? Sure, he may be a bit far reaching in his hopes on economic policy, but like you said... he'll be constrained by congress. He won't get to do everything he wants. One thing is for sure though, he would try to minimize the government that to quote you "has gotten too big". Would he be successful in every case? I think we'd all agree, "no". The President is constrained by congress. But, at least he'd try. Personally, I don't think any of the other candidates really would try.

Thank you as well for your kind words. I do love to debate (not argue ) and I am not sure who I'll end up voting for and I like people to challenge my mindset so when I have a firm position on a topic it is a well reasoned and well thought out position.

I agree in part with your position about the minimum wage. For instance I spent a bit of time in the financial services industry and if I were still there I would be making a great deal of money. However, I chose to go back to school and have multiple degrees as a teacher. I chose to take a job making very little money - certainly in comparison to the amount of education I have earned. If we allow businesses to pay what they believe is fair per hour does everyone have the option to accept or reject that job? Absolutely in times of recession that point is probably moot but I think allowing the market to work is fine as long as there is no market manipulation. I think that was what I was really trying to say earlier. Mathematically speaking, supply and demand should always dictate prices, benefits, etc. But outside of theory, humans (this includes corporations AND governments) can manipulate the market to suit their purposes if need be. What about those undereducated people who then have to take any job just to get by? I cited the Industrial Era of the 1800s because that is what we saw. Less government intervention and more corporations paying what they thought was fair. If BOTH entities stayed out of the market then yes I could agree with your point about minimum wage but the reality, IMO, is that people can manipulate to a certain degree.

As for OSHA, I can certainly see that some of the practices mentioned are over the top but do we have to get rid of it altogether? Why not strike a balance between no regulation and overregulation? I absolutely take issue with having to sign a waiver each and every year that the building I work in may or may not contain asbestos and this is the best we can do even with OSHA? What about without? Will business protect me or allow me to demand that they protect me?

I take huge issue with his stance on the EPA as well. Business is only interested in making money and in capitalism that is a given so shouldn’t government counteract the negative aspects of capitalism by offering some protections for us citizens? To me Progressive reform was a real answer to 19th century abuses but when we didn’t roll back Great Depression social welfare programs we allowed government to expand beyond its scope. Scale back don’t get rid of it altogether.

[WaveRyder]

The man is puppet and a stinky flip flopper.

Get real.

the only person in America that thinks he fits this description.

and again, no substantive example of a flipflop.

[SweetChildofMine]

The man is puppet and a stinky flip flopper.

Get real.

the only person in America that thinks he fits this description.

and again, no substantive example of a flipflop.

The people who really needed to see it already did.



Muwhahahahahahaha....

[SweetChildofMine]

Im not worried about it actually. Ive seen the faded signs, the harrowed pathways this man took you. Its up to you to go, but Im telling you it wont be pretty.

Best to keep him as a safe tiny trophy of his followers as a delusional what could have been and for the rest of us the trophy of a thank GOD it didn't happen.

[SweetChildofMine]

http://infofeeder.info/latest-informati ... to-fascism

http://infofeeder.info/latest-informati ... post-forum lol


Ron Paul with another Fear Train, copting ideas and repackaging crappy old GOP Policy/agenda.

[WaveRyder]

28. i will never vote for the man who spawned rand paul.

http://nky.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll ... 302210121/

yeah, what a terrible person....

[Wilds]

http://infofeeder.info/latest-information/77087-corporatocracy-ron-paul-warns-of-us-aquotslip-into-fascism

http://infofeeder.info/latest-informati ... post-forum lol


Ron Paul with another Fear Train, copting ideas and repackaging crappy old GOP Policy/agenda.

The first article says that Paul is against the close relationship of Corporations and Government.

Does this mean you are in favor of those entities running our society hand in hand?

The second article, isn't really an article. And this line that seems to be the main point, should tell you all you need to know about that author.

"I like Ron Paul too, despite his many fatal flaws, but it's time to understand he's politically irrelevant and only serves to give false hope to retarded GOP'ers"


Then again since you have not yet given any evidence to support any of your views, I suppose that 2nd article pretty much sums up the weight of your arguments.

[pjfan021]

I will always be suspicious of any politician who caucuses with the GOP. I don't see his party going along with what he says even if he was pres. War hawks with an anti military president...one side would give in IMO.

[WaveRyder]

one side would give in IMO.

then you dont know enough about ron paul........ Ron Paul would never "give in" to war.