Paul's Weaknesses! Make forums for those please

[Mordan]

Hello

I see a forum for Ron Paul's strengths. But frankly when I talk to some people they come up with

environment, education and healthcare

People look at http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/environment/ and frankly the video sucks. I'm a Ron Paul fan but there is no way I'm gonna convince people with that. Especially when it is their #1 issue. Yea some people are like that.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-care/
His Education policies must be better explained. People believe he want to get rid of public schools!!! I'm not even sure if that's true or not.
Also what is the point of a Tax Credit for schoolchildren if there is no more tax on the income?

Healthcare.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-care/
This page is good but scares people away ! What happens to people in dire need of help but are broke? A humane society cannot let them die helpless.
Ron Paul must sugar coat his message, especially for seniors.

These 3 points are really difficult in my discussions with potential voters.

Just my thoughts, as I try to convince hard nuts. They overall like Ron Paul but see him as terrible on those 3 points. I'm sure there is an answer for them. There must be one! :)

[Cleaner44]

Education is an easy one. Why send your tax dollars to Washington where Bush makes your local school district jump through hoops to get the money back? Each state and local district is capable of deciding what is important for their schools and the challeges they faces. Keep the money in the state and solve the problems locally. Much better than sending the money away and then begging for a portion back.

[nightlight]

Regarding healthcare & education -- you need to compare two schemes:

a) Individuals keep their money and decide how to spend it, which includes paying for their own education, health needs, supporting churches, charities, universities...

b) Government taking half your money, squandering good deal on oppressive self-serving bureaucracies, then returning the rest into projects bought largely by special interest.

Anyone seeking to buy influence would prefer (b) since it is all in one place, few people to bribe. Approach (a) is practically uncorruptable, especially if there is competition among private organizations providing services currently provided by bureaucracies.

People who make lots of money often become geneorus as they get older. Just look how much money Bill Gates has spent for health needs of Africa. If we didn't have semi-socialized medicine, he would be probably spending his billions here. Consider also that government has already squandered all social security, anyway. Any person of retirement age who contributed to SS all their working life would have had much more had they saved it in gold or as some other investement.


Public schools, universities and science existed well before 1980, when Carter created Department of Education. In fact much of the education and science went downhill since then (just look today's NASA and the one that sent man to the Moon; or look at the malignant political correctness, zero tolerance,... and other idiocies in the 'educational' institutions). Do you trust people like McCain or Huck, or god forbid, Hillary, to decide what your kids should study.

Environment -- with proper laws against harming others based on sound science which can stand up in court (in contrast with the self-serving pseudo science and propaganda peddled by various intere$ted parties presently), along with local largely private organizations, your environment would be cared for at least as well it is by some far away corruptible bureaucrats.

Just as we have grassroots organizations we created to elect Ron Paul, when left alone people will create private organizations that can take care of any need that government bureaucracies deal with presently. Since such organizations would not have the coercive power of government over you and would have to compete among themselves, if they wish to survive they would have to be much more responsive and responsible than the untouchable, far away bureaucrats.

Liberty works.

[nate895]

IMO, RP has no weaknesses.

[qh4dotcom]

As was discussed in another thread, many people have been brainwashed into thinking that there are a billion terrorists six thousand miles away and somehow they don't feel President Paul would protect them from these baddies.

And they are more afraid of these far-away bad people than the criminals running around their neighborhood.

Any ideas on how to convince these nuts?

[Patriot123]

Ron Paul has no weaknesses. His only weakness is seeing this nation fall flat on its face to socialism, with people on the streets, who lost everything their ancestors fought for. That's his weakness.

[Pete]

Healthcare.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-care/
This page is good but scares people away ! What happens to people in dire need of help but are broke? A humane society cannot let them die helpless.
Ron Paul must sugar coat his message, especially for seniors.

Health care costs started to take off when health insurance became a tax-free fringe benefit. Add to this Medicare and Medicaid, and you have a huge number of people, the majority of Americans, who are not judicious consumers of health care.

Add to this malpractice claims that can be brought by any shyster lawyer, with no penalty if the case is lost, and the tendency of insurance companies to pay off claims without a fight. This has resulted in astronomical costs of malpractice insurance, a good number of doctors leaving the profession because of it, excessive testing and procedures, and the consolidation of hospitals and medical practices.

Finally, we have the FDA limiting choices in medications and creating an oligopoly in the prescription drug field.

The root of the problem is that the federal government's involvement in health care has created an irrational market. For many years, I was uninsured and managed to pay for my family's health needs. What made that impossible was hospitals providing discounts of 80+% to insurance companies that were not available to me as a consumer.

As Dr. Paul says on his website, before the government got involved, costs were modest and as a result charities were able to provide a lot of help.

Here, read this:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2007/10/03/control_your_own_health_care?page=full&comments=true