Ron Paul Skeptic

[rational thinker]

I have a friend who is a liberal and he told me why he doesn't support Ron Paul:

"Ron Paul may be an honest politician (unlike so many), but his ideas are just crazy. First of all, he comes off as a historian who probably thinks the South should have beaten the North. Also, he proclaims that he is for states rights, but the fact of the matter is that the south has always needed a kicking in the ass by the North when trying to make legislations such as freeing the slaves, abadoning Jim Crow laws and the separate but equal clause, and now he is essentially allowing them to do the same thing with a woman's right to abortion.

Also, his economic policies are just unrealistic and unfounded. The corrupt companies you mention thrived because of goverment looking the other way. The only reason we know about them is because of the few shreds of decency remaining in the government and media.

The neo-cons and libertarians want a smaller government so that they can privatize formerly governmental functions. Privatizing social security will enrich Wall Street. Look what the Reaganization of the healthcare industry has done.

What kind of crazy idea is it that decreasing governmental regulations on corporations would cause them to shrink in size?

The corrupt companies you mention thrived because of goverment looking the other way. The only reason we know about them is because of the few shreds of decency remaining in the government and media.

The neo-cons and libertarians want a smaller government so that they can privatize formerly governmental functions. Privatizing social security will enrich Wall Street. Look what the Reaganization of the healthcare industry has done.

What kind of crazy idea is it that decreasing governmental regulations on corporations would cause them to shrink in size?

As far as the Enron question goes, I support 100% public ownership of all utilities, paid for by taxpayer dollars. Government ownership of electricity = no existence of Enron.
1.) Enron, as a public utility, would not exist if the public owned and maintained our electric service.

2.) Wal-Mart, as a private seller of goods, would be reduced in size under governmental restrictions.

Government ownership of a utility > "government contracts and subsidies" for a private utility company.

Therefore, more government = less private ownership.

First of all, those companies (Enron, Haliburton, et al) would go away with more government, because the government would own the functions for which these companies are responsible. Don't pay Haliburton to assrape New Orleans, just assrape them yourselves. At least if the taxpayers employed the people doing it they might use some KY.

The trouble with a corporatocracy is that is eliminates the middle class and returns us to a feudal system. You end up with giant oil companies making 40 billion dollars in profit in just one year while families can barely afford to heat their homes and drive their cars. You end up with a sprawling mega-mart with a presence every five miles killing small business with fungus-like rapidity. ( ) You end up with a government overflowing with lobbyists that puts these corporate giants into seats of power and wants to eliminate inheritance taxes so that the rich stay rich and the powerful stay powerful while the energy harnessed from Thomas Jefferson spinning in his grave could power a small country.

We wouldn't want that now, would we?"

[nate895]

Tell him the North is just as racist, and that he needs to get off his white horse and realize that the South and North have done just as many bad things as the other, and the rest of the world for that matter and they therefore have as much right to rule over the other as Spain has the right to rule France.

In a truly free economy, the market would allow for opposition to the companies who do bad things.

What is the "Reaganization of the health care industry?" Number two, go look what the health care is like in the UK and tell me if you'd want it.

They'd shrink in size because the government wouldn't give them aid and taxes on small business would be minimal, allowing for better competition.

One bad apple doesn't mean the whole tree is spoiled, most companies are good and do not cook the books.

More government=less private ownership is bad IMO, since when will they decide my house is next?

Feudalism can't happen in a free economy because they'd have to buy your land from you, and you want do that, will you?

[kyleAF]

Wow.

Does he realize that corporations only exist through a specific government sanction?? They have to apply for the title: "Corporation" or "Incorporated".

With it comes many legal and tax advantages which wouldn't exist without a LEGAL (government) backing. The lack of fundamental competition in the marketplace is entirely desirable for a corporation. That's why corporate lobbyists routinely SEEK legislation that regulates their industries. The large bodies can afford it, but it keeps newcomers at a significant disadvantage, which allows for monopolistic business practices.

This can't happen without legal recourse to enforce it through the government's HELP. Without forcing out the smaller competitors, the largest companies must constantly keep costs down and product quality up, lest even they get pushed out.

And don't let him offer contrary examples from the turn of the century, since the "Robber Barons" that they'll always talk about were in bed with the politicians just as much.

He even makes my point without realizing it when he says: "You end up with a government overflowing with lobbyists that puts these corporate giants into seats of power" Precisely!!! Though clearly he doesn't understand his own point, which is to not allow the government to interfere with and grant privilege to corporations... or exactly this will happen.

A CEO can't hold a gun to his competitor's head, so he bribes a politician to make a law that brings about the same end. That's the source of the corporatocracy: illegitimate and dishonest government.

[aravoth]

I have a friend who is a liberal and he told me why he doesn't support Ron Paul:

[I]"Ron Paul may be an honest politician (unlike so many), but his ideas are just crazy. First of all, he comes off as a historian who probably thinks the South should have beaten the North. Also, he proclaims that he is for states rights, but the fact of the matter is that the south has always needed a kicking in the ass by the North when trying to make legislations such as freeing the slaves, abadoning Jim Crow laws and the separate but equal clause, and now he is essentially allowing them to do the same thing with a woman's right to abortion.

By "them" I think he means the people withen those states. Can't have people runnning thier own lives now can we?



Also, his economic policies are just unrealistic and unfounded. The corrupt companies you mention thrived because of goverment looking the other way. The only reason we know about them is because of the few shreds of decency remaining in the government and media

What coorupt companies? Bear Sterns? JP Morgan? Citigroup? You mean all the companies that stifle true economic growth? The same ones that are only able to thrive becuase of Federal Reserve Bailouts? I'd Hardly call any of that looking the other way.



The neo-cons and libertarians want a smaller government so that they can privatize formerly governmental functions. Privatizing social security will enrich Wall Street. Look what the Reaganization of the healthcare industry has done

Neo-cons want smaller government? Since when? I wouldn't cvall expanding the warfare state, created a whole new bueraucracy, expanding medicare, and incresing the size and scope of the Dept. Of Ed downsizing. I don't need a socialisticly funded national retirement plan, and niether do you. It's blatantly obvious what government does with the money. Ask Jimmy Carters administration what they did to Social Security. To blame any of that on Republicans is beyond stupid. Democrats have looted every single benefit package ever created, not conservatives.



What kind of crazy idea is it that decreasing governmental regulations on corporations would cause them to shrink in size?

Becuase there would finally be competition. I could probably afford to buy solar panels if the fuggin feds weren't subsidizing the oil and natural gas industries. I could sue the living crap out of companies that are polluting my drinking water. Becuase there wouldn't be a law on the books that allows them to contaminate my water by "x" amount.



The corrupt companies you mention thrived because of goverment looking the other way. The only reason we know about them is because of the few shreds of decency remaining in the government and media.

Again, who the hell is looking the other way? You mean NAFTA was government "looking the other way. CAFTA is government looking the other way? Federal Reserve currency manipulation is looking the other way? The Fed bailing out the bank is "government looking the other way"? Where the hell does your buddy get his news from?



I'll comment on the rest when I get home.

[danberkeley]

[I]"Ron Paul may be an honest politician (unlike so many), but his ideas are just crazy. First of all, he comes off as a historian who probably thinks the South should have beaten the North.

What? And leftists dont come off as historians? Who does he think are in academia?

A
lso, he proclaims that he is for states rights, but the fact of the matter is that the south has always needed a kicking in the ass by the North when trying to make legislations such as freeing the slaves, abadoning Jim Crow laws and the separate but equal clause, and now he is essentially allowing them to do the same thing with a woman's right to abortion.

The north wanted to lagislate freeing the slaves? Is that why Abe Lincoln, a northerner, enforced the fugitive slave laws?


Also, his economic policies are just unrealistic and unfounded. The corrupt companies you mention thrived because of goverment looking the other way.

If governments look the other way, why do we want more of it?


The only reason we know about them is because of the few shreds of decency remaining in the government and media.

lol.


The neo-cons and libertarians want a smaller government so that they can privatize formerly governmental functions.

Sure. But this is AFTER government socialized private functions.


Privatizing social security will enrich Wall Street. Look what the Reaganization of the healthcare industry has done.

Social Security is one huge ponzi scheme.


What kind of crazy idea is it that decreasing governmental regulations on corporations would cause them to shrink in size?

It would eliminate the rediculous government-imposed barriers to entry. More firms would be able to enter the market. Besides, whats wrong with big companies?


As far as the Enron question goes, I support 100% public ownership of all utilities, paid for by taxpayer dollars. Government ownership of electricity = no existence of Enron.
1.) Enron, as a public utility, would not exist if the public owned and maintained our electric service.

2.) Wal-Mart, as a private seller of goods, would be reduced in size under governmental restrictions.

Enron was allowed to defraud its investors because the company did not pay dividends. If the company would have had to pay dividends, Enron would not have been able to fake its earnings.


Government ownership of a utility > "government contracts and subsidies" for a private utility company.

So, that would create more government jobs and, therefore, more government bureaucracy. God save New Orleans.


Therefore, more government = less private ownership.

Finally, his logic makes sense.


First of all, those companies (Enron, Haliburton, et al) would go away with more government, because the government would own the functions for which these companies are responsible. Don't pay Haliburton to assrape New Orleans, just assrape them yourselves. At least if the taxpayers employed the people doing it they might use some KY.

The reason Haliburton is making so much money is BECAUSE of the wars in the middle east.


The trouble with a corporatocracy is that is eliminates the middle class and returns us to a feudal system. You end up with giant oil companies making 40 billion dollars in profit in just one year while families can barely afford to heat their homes and drive their cars.

Here is where you know that your friend has not taken economics 101 (not even the government's economics). $40 billion is only a numerical value. The real value of that profit is not much. Besides, if you split $40 billion into ten companies, you still have $40 billion, more or less, in profit. Also, it's inflation that is making Americans poorer.


You end up with a sprawling mega-mart with a presence every five miles killing small business with fungus-like rapidity.

That simply means that the small business owners were less efficient than the mega-mart that came in. the consumers benefit because their cost of living went down.


You end up with a government overflowing with lobbyists that puts these corporate giants into seats of power and wants to eliminate inheritance taxes so that the rich stay rich and the powerful stay powerful while the energy harnessed from Thomas Jefferson spinning in his grave could power a small country.

The bigger the government, the more lobbies it attracts and the more susceptible to curruption it becomes. The inherentance taxdestroys middle-class families that were able to obtain the American dream despites the government's efforts against them.

[seapilot]

more govt= less freedom. simple as that.

[DealzOnWheelz]

why don't you quote him with this


The trouble with a corporatocracy is that is eliminates the middle class and returns us to a feudal system. You end up with giant oil companies making 40 billion dollars in profit in just one year while families can barely afford to heat their homes and drive their cars. You end up with a sprawling mega-mart with a presence every five miles killing small business with fungus-like rapidity.


And then ask him "have you seen what has been happening with bush in office?, so why shouldn't we get away from that?"

And why should there be an estate tax. The reason behind working so hard is to provide a better life for your children, the estate tax basically nullifies that.

[familydog]

Sounds more like a Ron Paul hater than a skeptic. Skeptics are fair in their assesment and are not so biased.

[scotto2008]

I don't think you can convert someone who has so many preconceptions. Either the "friend" will come around on his own, or take those ideas to the grave.

[yongrel]

Give 'em a good kick.