What would a Ron Paul presidency be like?

[Iris]

What would a Ron Paul presidency really be like? What could he do? What couldn't he do? What would he fight with Congress over and would he likely win? There's lots of places where I just don't know the answers and hope maybe you do.

Please answer whatever you can, and I've numbered them to make it easier. I want us all to be able to talk folks into voting for him and be ready to answer questions. Remember we want liberal votes as well as conservative ones, indies, etc. Where I have forgotten details/questions, please add and address them.


1.) War. As commander in chief he really can stop the wars, I think, and bring our GI's home. Done deal, right?

2.) Military Presence. But what about our military on bases all over the world? Will he pull all of them back? I know Paul won't be making new enemies, but that doesn't mean our enemies will disappear overnight. Don't we need to keep our finger on the pulse in strategic places?

3.) Big Brother/Police State. Bush has been wiretapping, spying, torturing. What of that can RP stop? All of it by virtue of the appointments he makes to agencies? We sure don't need Quaker meetings spied upon. And I love my civil liberties dearly. And even though I really do think we've seen some false flags, I'm concerned will we lose the ability to detect and stop internal attacks? Can Ron Paul actually overturn Pat Act and its cousins? I didn't think a pres could do that. How far would his power extend to repeal the encroaching police state?

4.) Borders. Congress already approved a fence on our southern border, but didn't fund it, right? Can RP just fund it? Does he have the power to unilaterally cut off welfare for illegals? What would be his chances of getting an amendment to the Const. to stop automatic birth citizenship? How much of his border plans could be fought successfully by Congress? Can't Congress keep going with their amnesty stuff and override any veto of RP's?

5.) NAU. Bush signed agreements. Can RP un-sign them? Can he stop the NAFTA superhighway? How?

6.) NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, etc. RP hates them. But what power would he have against them? Could he get them overturned? How would/could RP affect national or international trade?

7.) Corporate privelege. Can RP stop the tax breaks for corporations relocating offshore? Tax breaks for the oil boys? Can he make corporations not be treated like persons any more? What powers does a prez have in these areas, or is it all up to Congress? Can he stop corporate welfare? Will corporations be able to run over us even worse in some ways under RP?

8.) Social Security. RP has said he would take it out of general funds, protect it, and shore it up with cash. Can a prez do that without Congress? Will he try to privatize it again, which Americans don't want? Is it safer with him or in more danger?

9.) Welfare. RP has said he wouldn't just cut it off, that we have generations dependent on it. He said he'd phase it out. How much power does a prez have over this? Can he send it back to the states by refusing to fund it? Or can Congress override him here? What about children, elderly, and disabled? What about that mom with 4 kids who either hasn't worked in years or has a low paying job and whose hubby runs off with his secy -- or conjure up any *temporary* needy situation you like. How do you unfund the lazy father without hurting his kids? If it's put to the states, what's to stop all the poorest states from sending all their needy to the better managed states and sinking their budgets?

10.) Abortion. Can a prez send it to the states? If so, can a state make it illegal to travel to another state as S.D. tried to do? Or only to transport a minor?

11.) Second Amendment. Can a prez stop gun grabbers? Or is this just a veto and veto override deal? What do you think would happen?

12.) First Amendment. Same as #11 -- can't Congress still put hate laws in? Are they likely to be able to?

13.) Government waste. Can a prez cut budgets for departments? Or would that just be a matter of appointing the right dept. head who could then do it? Would there likely be fights with Congress on RP's appointments? Can a prez completely un-fund a dept. and make it disappear or force it to state level? Do you forsee any dangers here?

14.) EPA/ecology. Can a prez force this back to the states? If he can, what dangers could there be in not having uniform laws? Would one state become a dumping ground?

15.) Govt lands/national parks, etc. Can a prez sell all this off without Congress agreeing? Would we lose our beautiful national parks to private developers? Would we lose wildlife habitat?

16.) Healthcare & Insurance corruption/medical costs. Can a prez force this back to states? What will happen with medicare and medicaid? Isn't there a danger that one state says no and one says yes and all the needy flock to the more permissive state and sink it? In the short run will RP keep medicare/aid and allow competition with drugs from Canada? Does he have that power? We have the baby boomers coming up. Will they be left out in the cold?

17.) General corruption -- our gov't is bought. What powers would RP as prez have over this? If programs are driven to the state level, won't we still be fighting corruption there? Would it be easier to manage? What about lobbyists? How much could he be effective in returning our government to us?

18.) Highways. Can this be totally up to the states? Are we going to see toll roads springing up all over? What is to stop foreign interests from buying or leasing our roads?

19.) Public utilities/water. Not sure if this would be affected one way or another?

20.) Drugs Laws. How do you see this being affected? Would states that have voted in medical marijuana, for instance, now no longer be harrassed by the feds? Or would that take an act of Congress?

21.) Education. Could RP force this entirely back to states? Would this be good or bad? Shouldn't there be some nationally standardized requirements?

22.) Unions. RP said they could exist but would no longer be protected. IOW, striking workers could be fired. As prez does he have power over this?

23.) Energy. How do you see a RP presidency affecting this?

24.) Gays in military. RP didn't raise his hand when asked if he would overturn don't-ask-don't-tell. Any comments/speculations on this?

25.) Military. Would RP weaken our state of preparedness? Can he do anything for vets, or isn't that all in the hands of Congress?

26.) Elections. What effect, if any, would RP have on fair elections, campaign funding, etc.? What about getting Instant Runoff Voting or Public Funding for campaigns?

27.) Taxes. How much effect can a prez have on our taxes without Congress? I assume none?




What have I forgotten (I'm getting distractions, sorry)? Please add and discuss, just give it your best shot. Are any of you in touch with Dr. Paul so you can ask him any of these questions directly?

Thanks in advance!

[legion]

personally i dont think i would notice anything different im my day to day

but i sure would feel less guilty all the time

[DjLoTi]

for # 24, I can tell you that the current policy really isn't much of a problem. If anything, the main thing it's used for is for people who want to get out of their military contract, they'll claim (legitimate or not) that they're gay.

[carla8478]

Compared to what we've had in the past it would be utter bliss.

By the way if you want more detailed information on what exactly the constitutional powers are for the executive branch, I would suggest the book "The Making of America" by W. Cleon Skousen, who has earned the title of honorary founding father.
The reason this book is so important is because it breaks the constitution down point by point, is in plain english, is well researched, and is well indexed so its easy to find the sections you want.

You can get the book at www.skousen2000.com.

I would suggest his works for any one who wants to learn more about the constitution and the founding fathers. Especially if you're a busy person (and who isn't nowadays) and need to find what you're looking for quickly.

[Delivered4000]

Why would you want to make interstate transport illegal?

[Iris]

Why would you want to make interstate transport illegal?

I never said I would.

Hmmm... doesn't anyone have any answers to all these questions?

[hambone1982]

The most important thing is that we wouldn't feel like big brother is looking over our shoulder all the time. We would feel like we had a man in office that would do everything in his constitutional power to ensure that Americans regained and retained the freedoms promised to us in the Constitution.

For a long time I was very angry and saddened with what my country had become. It was no longer a country that I was proud of. I served in Iraq and I was ashamed that I had a hand in helping expand this Empire. I had lost all faith in our government and political system. I was seriously considering moving to Costa Rica and abandoning the nation that I once believed was the greatest in the world.

How could things have gone so wrong?

Now, I hear Ron Paul speak and I get chills because he speaks about the America that I had always loved. He believes in every word of the Constitution that swore to protect and defend with my life.

Now I have hope for the future. Now, I no longer fear for future generations. This is why Ron Paul and his message mean so much to me. All that really matters is that we will start to head in the right direction and it will be up to us, the younger generation, to continue what Ron Paul has already started.

[ronpaulitician]

Iris,

I think it'll be very difficult to get straight answers to many of these questions. (click me (http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=1590)). Ideally, yes, we would get Dr. Paul himself to tell us exactly what his plans are, and explain to us which plans he would be able to put into motion no matter what, and which plans he would require the assistance of Congress for.

[aravoth]

1. yes, as commander-in cheif he can order the withdrawl the day he takes office.

2. pulling our forces back to the homeland is the only way to provide defence without pissing off the entire world.

3. Most of what GWB did was with congressional approval, but I'd say that if anyone in congress wanted to get elected ever again they'd pass a bill that abolishes the patriot act. Additionaly he can rescind what ever is left with an executive order.

4. Funding the border fence would have to come through congress. But he could secure it himself in other way, like using the military.

5. Yes he can stop it, executive order. The only reason congress is not involved is becuase no treaty has been signed. As long as it stays that way, RP could wipe it out with the stroke of a pen.

6. Treaties such as that have to go through congress, not sure if "nafta" is considered a legitamate treaty though.



I'll come back tomorrow and try to answer the others, I'm tired.

[austin356]

1.)Done deal - Strong Pentagon Backlash though.

2.)I think he would a multi year pull-back plan. I see him reducing the number of bases by at least half. That will probably be all he can get internally (Pentagon), even though he has "final" authority over the matter (someone correct if wrong).

3.)Really tricky. He will not want to come out as someone who completely wants to dismantle NSA, CIA, etc, because if God Forbid an attack did happen after a quick purge, he would then be a lame duck, even if his party controlled the other branches. So instead of blanket attacks against the police state, he will work gradually and behind the scenes. He will not be able to do anything over local and state enforcement problems, except to end fed. grants that exacerbate the situation (DUI quota's, etc).

4.) Funds are there. Funds are available. Bush Refuses to use them.

5.) This is the proper place of an executive order, repealing previous agreements, comes into play, even though I hate "executive order".

6.) Trading Organizations stay. He will make no progress, except putting up "roadblocks" for future proliferation.

7.) He will be able to have enough power in congress to end all corporate subsidization (except farm), for the sole reason of Dems being somewhat supportive and Repubs not wanting to break loyalty. I use the word end, both lightly and not on a permanent basis.

8.) He will attempt to get Congress to make it law that surpluses cannot be run into the regular budget. He will also attempt to slow cost growth by changing the annual adjustment to inflation instead of average income growth along with an age jump. Individual accounts will not get through, but instead a "pension" system will make its way through. Even though I am inherently against SS, I see how Australia's managed pension fund has done quite well.

9.) He will only be able to slowly push it back to the states.

10.) Supreme Court nomination will determine this. One new Judge will sway the vote, back to the states. I would also like to point out that if he can get one libertarian/constitutionalist judge, then excellent, because almost always one side of the political spectrum in the courts is "right" or close to it, and having one person who is always "switching sides" will practically reinstate the constitution to the court, even though it would be with one Judge.


Will finish later......................

[beermotor]

A lot of the problems with this country are caused by legislation, which has to be fixed by Congress. The president however has strong "push" power to get them to do stuff, and he can stop them from doing stuff that sucks, so you can expect a lot of Vetos, which is great.

The executive sets policy for a lot of things, and you can expect immigration and border enforcement to become a serious issue.

[Sakimoto]

A lot of the problems with this country are caused by legislation, which has to be fixed by Congress. The president however has strong "push" power to get them to do stuff, and he can stop them from doing stuff that sucks, so you can expect a lot of Vetos, which is great.

The executive sets policy for a lot of things, and you can expect immigration and border enforcement to become a serious issue.

I agree. Also, the President can make special appeals to the American people to influence the congress on particular issues. I seem to recall Reagan did this a few times.

[dude58677]

A lot of the problems with this country are caused by legislation, which has to be fixed by Congress. The president however has strong "push" power to get them to do stuff, and he can stop them from doing stuff that sucks, so you can expect a lot of Vetos, which is great.

The executive sets policy for a lot of things, and you can expect immigration and border enforcement to become a serious issue.

How can he shrink government with a Congress that supports big government?

1) He can erase everything in the Code of Federal Regulations.

2) He can pardon all tax evaders convited or sued and even future tax evaders(Constitution doesn't limit this), pardon drug offenders and future drug offenders, pardon anyone convicted of or sued for a gun possession.

3) Veto the appropiation funds for the Department of Education, Department of Health, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Labor, Department of Energy, Department of Housing, and Department of Welfare.

4) He can set up an office by executive order that arrests and indicts any public official who violates the Constitution.

[mconder]

4.) Borders. Congress already approved a fence on our southern border, but didn't fund it, right?

The presdient does not need approval from congress to put the military on the border, just in other countries.

[Iris]

Thank you all so much for your answers!

To those who said they would continue, I'm hoping you will as I'm learning from you. :)

[austin356]

The below is just my speculation. I am not as informed with the politics of the situation as many, but I do think exactly, and I mean exactly topic by topic, like Dr. Paul. I have yet to find even the most subtle or insignificant issue of which I disagree with him; So I at least believe I think along the same lines and thus have a similar reaction to topics.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

11.) Well this is where One single Supreme Court appointee will really really really come in handy. But short term, he would send an executive order eliminating all previous executive orders, many of which have been detrimental to 2nd amendment rights. He will also be able to do some political maneuvering with the congress, win which gun legislation (on both sides, pro and anti gun) is eliminated and given the issue of regulation back to states.

12.)This would work in similar fashion to guns. He may be able to get through some type of "individual rights" legislation, if it is characterized as a "equal rights" law.

13.) Many sub-departments were created by executive orders (FEMA I believe is an example); all of which will be IMMEDIATELY eliminated. Of what stays he will call for 20% cuts across the board, for the first year, and study the results, then present a very legislation to congress eliminating a myriad of departments, subdepartments, and programs. He will "let be" those programs that are very political and instead choose lesser know parts of gov. that dont stir political feelings.

14)He wont be able to remove the EPA. He will be able to change how it works though. He will move to a property rights method of protection instead of regulatory. I actually see progressives being supportive of him, but if he appears like a "corporatist, anti-environmentalist" he will lose political power really fast. For this reason he will just shift methods of protection around. This really is not bad. I am nearly an "anarcho-capitalist" and I support protection of the environment (thats not private property), but only through prosecution under property rights (public owns the air).


15.) Absolutely nothing will happen with national parks, except maybe he turning parks over to the state ownership.

16.) First, he will legalize competition with medicare. Right now over 65 ppl cannot buy private insurance (someone correct me if I am wrong, I am not elderly).... Second he will attempt to give everyone who purchases their own private insurance (and is eligible for medicare) a tax credit of around 10k or so (medicare spends 18k per person now).

17.) His main power with this would be political. If he sees someone beholden to special interest he will have the power to bring attention to it. Attention is always the quickest way to end corruption, without suit.

18.)He will try to eliminate the DOT. He will then attempt to get Congress to instruct the states to collect and allocate their states portion of the federal gas tax, thus removing all major infrastructure allocation by congress. He will also be able to allow privatization of airports. This is a big deal for cities now. The Feds will not let private airports be built in the nation (other than midway). He will be able to get this through because big city liberals want to privatize their city owned airports to raise cash to spend on social projects (see: Philly)

19.) Most of such infrastructure is locally owned and operated so nothing will change.

20.) He will attempt to eliminate the DEA. He will say the savings from such should be used to "fight terrorism" and enforce immigration laws. He will make no attempt to push his belief in personal choice onto the states. ALL states have drug laws, so eliminating the federal laws does not really change anything, only its intensity in some cases. Marc Emory will endorse Ron Paul.

21.) The DOEd is perhaps the worst department. He will attempt to destroy it, but will not be able to do so unless he says he will funnel existing funds back down to students somehow (I am thinking student loans).

22.) He will not be able to make any headway, unless he has the issue tied to something that is true and dear to liberals.

23.) Eliminate all subsidies to big oil. He will probably end up expanding tax credits for Alt. energy, even though he really would not do that if he was dictator. He will also remove basically the entire federal permitting process for nuclear plants. States already have a very long permitting process so it is a dumb overlap. Several dozen nuclear plants will be built as a result.

24.) He thinks it should be a issue resolved within the military. I think he personally favors allowing anyone in the military, so long as they dont cause a disruption, but thats not good politics. He should do exactly what he did, which is to brush off the specific issue and look at it through principle.

25.) He may try to privatize Vet hospitals, and then just give everyone who has served medicare. He will not weaken our national defense. He cannot unilaterally go against the worlds most powerful building (pentagon). He will be able to cut general spending by 25% in addition to war spending (125B per year).

26.)He would be against any federal election legislation, unless it was to help secure individual rights against abuse by the state or local govs. Which means more along the lines of acting as dad and letting the kids do whatever the hell they want, until they start acting up.

27.) In 1921 the Supreme Court ruled that the 16th amendment had given Congress "NO new powers of taxation" because at the time income and wages were not the same thing. Income was "profit derived from corporate activity". He will be able to hang this over the head of Congress and be able to pass a dumbed down version of the fairtax. If he threatens to "No longer collect taxes" he will be able to get whatever reforms he wants through the congress. Because of this he will stake his position on the far extreme end (lewrockwell.com) and compromise somewhere (cato.org)







Prediction: Judge Napolitano as a Supreme Court Nomination.

[Ponce]

I really don't know what to say because what is supposed to be and what will actually be are never the same.

My main concern is foreign influence in the White House and the Pentagon.

As you have been able to see with King Bush he is only a puppet whose strings are being pulled by a foreign concern.

You then have the economy, to many American jobs and companies are going overseas and as long as this keeps on going we will have nothing that the world will want from America itself.

Foreign relations, it will be very hard to make peace once again with the rest of the world and specially with the Muslim world......but it can be done by doing something as to the reason that we got into trouble with them to start with.

Welfare, there should be a better way to monitor those who says that they need the welfare in order to survive. I live in a one mule Micky Mouse of a town where the majority of its people are either on welfare or on food stamps.....yet I am unable to get someone to come and work in my property.

Illegals, no need to make NEW LAWS for the laws are already in the books, all that we have to do is to make them so.

It wil be an uphill battle for Ron Paul to get rid of ALL foreign influence in the US government but as long as he remains firm, and with the backing of those of us who voted for him, he can do it.

It is time to make America for Americans once again.

[RPR-omaha]

If Ron Paul became president I would have low expectations. All I would expect is a smaller government. The great thing about a Ron Paul presidency is that he is not going to try to expand federal power he will shrink it. I really doubt that he will be able to do much more than that. Also a victory for him would cause Americans to start discussing the issues and drop the name calling. If he wins it would be a revolution on par with that of 1820 when Andrew Jackson was elected.

[4Horsemen]

1.) War. As commander in chief he really can stop the wars, I think, and bring our GI's home. Done deal, right?

More like a 90 day pullout process, with some advisors and contracted protection staying behind to assist the Iraq government.

2.) Military Presence. But what about our military on bases all over the world? Will he pull all of them back? I know Paul won't be making new enemies, but that doesn't mean our enemies will disappear overnight. Don't we need to keep our
Finger on the pulse in strategic places?

A finger on the pulse? Which no other country has either. Why should have our fingers be on the pulse? What makes us so special? Sounds a little paranoid when you insist on having the pulse of the world because you’re afraid of intermittent enemies. Who ever we supply weapons to next, will become our future enemy.

3.) Big Brother/Police State. Bush has been wiretapping, spying, torturing. What of that can RP stop? All of it by virtue of the appointments he makes to agencies? We sure don't need Quaker meetings spied upon. And I love my civil liberties dearly. And even though I really do think we've seen some false flags, I'm concerned will we lose the ability to detect and stop internal attacks? Can Ron Paul actually overturn Pat Act and its cousins? I didn't think a pres could do that. How far would his power extend to repeal the encroaching police state?

Ditch the dept. of homeland security, ATF, dept of education, no real ID issued, review the NSA protocols for Constitutional protection compliance. Implement changes to comply with the Constitution as it relates to American citizen's civil liberties, Downsize and restructure the CIA, DEA ICE, FBI, military, defense industrial complex reviews, and other depts. Many should be shut down.


4.) Borders. Congress already approved a fence on our southern border, but didn't fund it, right? Can RP just fund it? Does he have the power to unilaterally cut off welfare for illegals? What would be his chances of getting an amendment to the Const. to stop automatic birth citizenship? How much of his border plans could be fought successfully by Congress? Can't Congress keep going with their amnesty stuff and override any veto of RP's?

Why have a border fence? They already dig tunnels, so does a fence stop tunnels? Just take away the nanny state benefits--welfare. Also, make a federal law that criminalizes employing illegal aliens with heavy fines. The American citizens can police themselves without more troops, cops and fences. The drug war proves this method fails anyways.

5.) NAU. Bush signed agreements. Can RP un-sign them? Can he stop the NAFTA superhighway? How?

Sure, he's the President; he can undue whatever the prior President agreed to especially if it’s unconstitutional. The people have to vote for government changes, not the President.

6.) NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, etc. RP hates them. But what power would he have against them? Could he get them overturned? How would/could RP affect national or international trade?

Money talks and BS walks. They exist because we fund most of them. No money, no organizations.

7.) Corporate privelege. Can RP stop the tax breaks for corporations relocating offshore? Tax breaks for the oil boys? Can he make corporations not be treated like persons any more? What powers does a prez have in these areas, or is it all up to Congress? Can he stop corporate welfare? Will corporations be able to run over us even worse in some ways under RP?

The people have to use their consumption power to their own benefit. Consume less, support small independent business, shops and restaurants. Stop shopping at Wal-mart so much, and other monopolies. Help the small businessman, not the over-sized corporations. Stop the obsession with materialism, and their marketing/ advertisement mind control gimmicks---less TV viewing would help big time. The power is in the people's hands but they must work together to yield that power to their benefit. Don't join organizations labels you into a fixed bias that promotes group think--- NAACP, ACLU, Democrat/ Republican party, liberal vs.conservative debate nazis, Mormons/ evangelical Christians/ Gay rights movement, Scientologist, NASCAR fans, AFL-CIO unions, hippies of the 60's and peace lovers. If it has a leader and demands blinded loyalty, and uses attack dog tactics, then they are not for you..

8.) Social Security. RP has said he would take it out of general funds, protect it, and shore it up with cash. Can a prez do that without Congress? Will he try to privatize it again, which Americans don't want? Is it safer with him or in more danger?

Faze it our over a period of time. Slow process...

9.) Welfare. RP has said he wouldn't just cut it off, that we have generations dependent on it. He said he'd phase it out. How much power does a prez have over this? Can he send it back to the states by refusing to fund it? Or can Congress override him here? What about children, elderly, and disabled? What about that mom with 4 kids who either hasn't worked in years or has a low paying job and whose hubby runs off with his secy -- or conjure up any *temporary* needy situation you like. How do you unfund the lazy father without hurting his kids? If it's put to the states, what's to stop all the poorest states from sending all their needy to the better managed states and sinking their budgets?

Welfare should be treated as an emergency program that's helps families get on their feet. It should provide resources / assistance to help families become independent. Don't raise generations of families on welfare. Not good for them, or society as a whole.

10.) Abortion. Can a prez send it to the states? If so, can a state make it illegal to travel to another state as S.D. tried to do? Or only to transport a minor?

It's not a Constitutional issue; leave it up to the states to decide where people have an effective voice. Follow the rule of the Republic, not a country ruled by the mind controlled/ brainwashed citizens of ignorance and gluttony. Travel restrictions violate civil liberties, no restrictions ever.

11.) Second Amendment. Can a prez stop gun grabbers? Or is this just a veto and veto override deal? What do you think would happen? The government is supposed to make sure that the states don't violate the people's Constitutional rights. That would apply to the 2nd Amendment.

12.) First Amendment. Same as #11 -- can't Congress still put hate laws in? Are they likely to be able to?

Sure, most Americans don't pay ant attention to the anyways. Paris Hilton is the big story today.

13.) Government waste. Can a prez cut budgets for departments? Or would that just be a matter of appointing the right dept. head who could then do it? Would there likely be fights with Congress on RP's appointments? Can a prez completely un-fund a dept. and make it disappear or force it to state level? Do you forsee any dangers here?

If RP is elected, that would be signal to the Rep. and Dem. Parties game on the people is over with. If they continue with their phony stances and arguments, they will be out of office come next election. If it's unconstitutional and you vote yes for it...You just killed your political career, no debate, no excuses, no spin, no cover up, or bogus tears can bail you out. Your gone, end of story..

14.) EPA/ecology. Can a prez force this back to the states? If he can, what dangers could there be in not having uniform laws? Would one state become a dumping ground?

Maybe, but a good lawsuit always changes their ways.

15.) Govt lands/national parks, etc. Can a prez sell all this off without Congress agreeing? Would we lose our beautiful national parks to private developers? Would we lose wildlife habitat?

Most of our national parks U.N. biospheres. Some think the U.N. already owns them which is belongs to the industrialist/ banker/ energy crime baron families owned by the British, French Asian Royal families, / philanthropist/ Vatican --old roman empire/ Bavarian secret societies/ Princes and sheiks and some mullahs.

16.) Healthcare & Insurance corruption/medical costs. Can a prez force this back to states? What will happen with medicare and medicaid? Isn't there a danger that one state says no and one says yes and all the needy flock to the more permissive state and sink it? In the short run will RP keep medicare/aid and allow competition with drugs from Canada? Does he have that power? We have the baby boomers coming up. Will they be left out in the cold?

The hard truth is the baby bombers are going to suffer big time. The debt. is going to break this country in the near future. The dollar will be worthless, savings gone, business liquidation. Sells for pennies on the dollar to the bankers and other scumbags. More consolidation of centralized corporate power!!!

17.) General corruption -- our gov't is bought. What powers would RP as prez have over this? If programs are driven to the state level, won't we still be fighting corruption there? Would it be easier to manage? What about lobbyists? How much could he be effective in returning our government to us?

Bigger the government the bigger the corruption is. Small government helps the corruption problem by itself, no police, no agents, and no swat team is needed.

18.) Highways. Can this be totally up to the states? Are we going to see toll roads springing up all over? What is to stop foreign interests from buying or leasing our roads?

Federal highways are funded by gas taxes the consumer pays everyday at the pump. Taxes pay for these roads, no private funds.

19.) Public utilities/water. Not sure if this would be affected one way or another?

States should control that.

20.) Drugs Laws. How do you see this being affected? Would states that have voted in medical marijuana, for instance, now no longer be harrassed by the feds? Or would that take an act of Congress?

The feds should stay out of this matter. The states have to decide how the reform fair drug laws because of limited funding that would ensure since Uncle Sam is funding it. They could always focus on the child molesters since that would be protecting our future, not destroying it.

21.) Education. Could RP force this entirely back to states? Would this be good or bad? Shouldn't there be some nationally standardized requirements?

[Iris]

Thank you all so much for your input to this! Does anyone have any more thoughts or information on this?

pills11.com ;))

[LibertyEagle]

What would a Ron Paul presidency be like?

Pure heaven, as far as I'm concerned.

[dude58677]

27.) Taxes. How much effect can a prez have on our taxes without Congress? I assume none?

Exectutive order to lay off all IRS employees replacing them with none and pardon all tax evaders.

[RonPaul4President]

4) He can set up an office by executive order that arrests and indicts any public official who violates the Constitution.

That alone would take care of most problems. I REALLY hope he does it.

[Iris]

Iris,

I think it'll be very difficult to get straight answers to many of these questions. (click me (http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=1590)). Ideally, yes, we would get Dr. Paul himself to tell us exactly what his plans are, and explain to us which plans he would be able to put into motion no matter what, and which plans he would require the assistance of Congress for.

I would love to read or hear Dr. Paul's answers to these questions!

pills11.com ;))

[Iris]

A lot of the problems with this country are caused by legislation, which has to be fixed by Congress. The president however has strong "push" power to get them to do stuff, and he can stop them from doing stuff that sucks, so you can expect a lot of Vetos, which is great.

The executive sets policy for a lot of things, and you can expect immigration and border enforcement to become a serious issue.

Yes, we would expect a lot of vetoes -- which would be a GOOD thing. It would help us all out if Congress were forced to actually READ the bills they sign, and argue for them. What a unique concept, eh? ;)

I'm also reminded of Dr. Paul being asked if he had any friends in Congress. He replied that he felt he had a lot of friends as either the Repubs or the Dems would agree with him on one issue or another. So I'd imagine whatever he would veto usually about half of Congress would be on his side.

More to the point, he'd educate folks.




pills11.com ;))

[Iris]

27.) Taxes. How much effect can a prez have on our taxes without Congress? I assume none?

Exectutive order to lay off all IRS employees replacing them with none and pardon all tax evaders.

Ooo! Gotta' love that one! :D

pills11.com ;))

[ecliptic]

Dr. Paul has stated he will need help in the form of a new congress with more "Ron Pauls" to help him achieve real change. So that is two years into his term when the next congressional election cycle occurs, right? I do not expect any radical actions in the first days or weeks or even months. Dr. Paul has said so himself regarding the elimination of the Federal Reserve, that this change would need to be approached very carefully. Ditto for many of the changes we hope for - they need to happen in a careful and reasonably fair manner. No one wants to crash the economy... and even giant evil corporations have rights, right?

What I expect is immediate movement towards fixing the fundamentals. Initially, expect things like the "read the bills act (http://www.downsizedc.org/read_the_laws.shtml)", repeal the Patriot Act (http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=66) , stopping the REAL ID trojan horse (http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=73) , the Industrial Hemp Act (http://www.votehemp.com/PR/02-13-07_federal_bill.html) , and rapid movement towards eliminating all martial law executive orders.

The large-scale issues such as fiat currency, military bases, defense over-spending, fundamental tax changes, eliminating unconstitutional "laws".... and sooooo much more will all require a careful approach. The powerful big corporate lobbies will have to be negotiated with in making such huge changes. It will take time, and I for one think you can scare a hell of a lot more voters away with too radical a change agenda than any alleged "damage" that a few over-zealous 911 truth activists could ever do.

[austinphish]

It's really the bullypulpit of the presidency that will make the difference. He will be able to spread his message of liberty and the Constitution so that he get the American people behind him and bring Congress to their knees.

[ChrisM]

You seem to want the President to do a lot of stuff he shouldn't be able to do. If you want your Head of State to make laws, go to a Parliamentary nation. If you want a nation with a separation of powers, then stay here and agree with what needs to be done.

The President is:

Commander-in-chief
He is absolute head of the entire military (with a slight exception for the National Guard and formerly the Coast Guard). He can bring all troops back and re-deploy them where he is allowed to deploy troops. The only thing he can't do on his own is use military force and declare war.

Symbolic Head-of-party
He has a lot of clout when dealing with party-members, which greatly increase his lobbying powers. Using this symbolic authority, he can indirectly introduce bills into Congress through a Congressman.

Veto-er
He can veto any law, including dumb laws like the namings of post office buildings. Congress can override any veto with a 2/3 majority in both Houses. That's hard for Congress to do, but not impossible, which is the design of the veto.

Head of Government
He has complete power over the Executive Branch. He can hire and fire employees and delegate authority at will. All Executive employees serve at the leisure of the President. He can use this authority to influence people to do certain things. He can also nominate people for certain positions, even outside of the Executive Department, with Congressional approval. All Federal judges are appointed by the President.

Head of State
He has symbolic power over the people. The office itself holds an eerie respect that is unmatched anywhere else. I hated John Kerry, but if he visited as President (shudder) I would do anything to shake his hand, because he would be President. He also represents the United States in foreign affairs, and has serious influence therefore over world politics.

Law-enforcer
The President must enforce all laws. All laws. All parts of all laws. But he can choose how to enforce them. Law enforcement is done primarily through Cabinet Departments and Executive Orders.

Budget drafter
The President drafts the budget, but Congress must finalize and approve it. The President can also veto the budget if he doesn't agree with what Congress has made it into.

[thuja]

Iris, you forgot food. we cannot accomplish anything without REAL food and supplements. NAIS is a very big problem, and will, if made law, prevent us from having any real food. Since it is in aid of corporate agribusiness and against smaller farmers(the ones who provide real food), we will only have cloned, genetically modified, chemical so-called "food". Also, even 4H kids will have to register their land and microchip ID their animals, which their parents will not want to agree to, nor afford. None of us would be able to even have a couple of hens for eggs without participating in this. (see www.farmandranchfreedom.org, and www.libertyark.net, and arkansasanimalproducers.8k.com)

Additionally, our food supplements are constantly i danger, both from codex allimentarius and our own lawmakers. (see www.healthfreedomusa.org)
Ron Paul's HR2117 explained at that site.

food and supplements should be one of the main items

[thuja]

It's really the bullypulpit of the presidency that will make the difference. He will be able to spread his message of liberty and the Constitution so that he get the American people behind him and bring Congress to their knees.

this will be wonderful! let's keep up the work!

[Iris]

Austin356 -- thank you so very much for your great answers. You only make me want to vote for him even more!

I have a few questions/comments, if you don't mind.


11.) Well this is where One single Supreme Court appointee will really really really come in handy. But short term, he would send an executive order eliminating all previous executive orders, many of which have been detrimental to 2nd amendment rights. He will also be able to do some political maneuvering with the congress, win which gun legislation (on both sides, pro and anti gun) is eliminated and given the issue of regulation back to states.

I'm just curious what difference do you think we'd end up with? I'd guess most of America is happy with things pretty much as they are, including most Dems.


13.) Many sub-departments were created by executive orders (FEMA I believe is an example); all of which will be IMMEDIATELY eliminated. Of what stays he will call for 20% cuts across the board, for the first year, and study the results, then present a very legislation to congress eliminating a myriad of departments, subdepartments, and programs. He will "let be" those programs that are very political and instead choose lesser know parts of gov. that dont stir political feelings.

I like your last sentence for when talking with voters trying to persuade them to vote for Paul.


14)He wont be able to remove the EPA. He will be able to change how it works though. He will move to a property rights method of protection instead of regulatory. I actually see progressives being supportive of him, but if he appears like a "corporatist, anti-environmentalist" he will lose political power really fast. For this reason he will just shift methods of protection around. This really is not bad. I am nearly an "anarcho-capitalist" and I support protection of the environment (thats not private property), but only through prosecution under property rights (public owns the air).


And the water? I think the Libertarian stance is that if the guy up the road from me pollutes "our" river/stream I should sue him. The problem with that is I might not have the money to sue him, but meanwhile he's poisoning me and my family -- from his privately owned property. Or maybe he's pouring out something that's leaching into the water table. I do think we need some overall laws against polluters.


16.) First, he will legalize competition with medicare. Right now over 65 ppl cannot buy private insurance (someone correct me if I am wrong, I am not elderly).... Second he will attempt to give everyone who purchases their own private insurance (and is eligible for medicare) a tax credit of around 10k or so (medicare spends 18k per person now).

I'm not sure if over 65 folks can buy private insurance. Interesting question.


17.) His main power with this would be political. If he sees someone beholden to special interest he will have the power to bring attention to it. Attention is always the quickest way to end corruption, without suit.

One of the things I like best about him is his strong stance against corruption. I trust him 100% more than any other candidate that way.


18.)He will try to eliminate the DOT. He will then attempt to get Congress to instruct the states to collect and allocate their states portion of the federal gas tax, thus removing all major infrastructure allocation by congress. He will also be able to allow privatization of airports. This is a big deal for cities now. The Feds will not let private airports be built in the nation (other than midway). He will be able to get this through because big city liberals want to privatize their city owned airports to raise cash to spend on social projects (see: Philly)

One of the things I can imagine with things going back to the states is that one state might have great highways, and another terrible highways. And one state might have great welfare, and another terrible welfare or none -- which would result in disaster if all those on welfare started moving to just a few states. Those states would sink like rocks.


22.) He will not be able to make any headway, unless he has the issue tied to something that is true and dear to liberals.

What he's said about this is that he would allow unions (freedom) but would not allow any laws protecting strikers; IOW strikers could be fired. But I don't know what power he would have over this. I think you're putting this under the category of his not destroying things that are terribly important to one party or the other? I'm not sure how we can reassure potential RP voters of this.


23.) Eliminate all subsidies to big oil. He will probably end up expanding tax credits for Alt. energy, even though he really would not do that if he was dictator. He will also remove basically the entire federal permitting process for nuclear plants. States already have a very long permitting process so it is a dumb overlap. Several dozen nuclear plants will be built as a result.

The Dems would love to see him give tax credits for Alt. Energy. I understand the idea of the free market, but so many have gotten so powerful with laws that favor them, that the little guy has been crowded out. The big energy corps. can simply buy up patents for anything that competes with them, for instance. And we've all watched the big stores "eat" the little stores. I still miss my local hardware store that went out of business 30 years ago. It got eaten by a bigger store, and it got eaten by a yet bigger one. Seems without some laws to stop it we'll end up with only one store, probably Walmart. :eek: Sorry to get a bit off topic.


24.) He thinks it should be a issue resolved within the military. I think he personally favors allowing anyone in the military, so long as they dont cause a disruption, but thats not good politics. He should do exactly what he did, which is to brush off the specific issue and look at it through principle.

I've argued this long and hard with one liberal friend who wants to paint RP as against gays in the military because he didn't raise his hand on stage at the debate when asked if he would overturn "Don't ask; don't tell."


Now, can anyone tell me why "pills11.com )" appears below my posts? I sure didn't put it there!



pills11.com ;))

[thuja]

Iris, you forgot food. we cannot accomplish anything without REAL food and supplements. NAIS is a very big problem, and will, if made law, prevent us from having any real food. Since it is in aid of corporate agribusiness and against smaller farmers(the ones who provide real food), we will only have cloned, genetically modified, chemical so-called "food". Also, even 4H kids will have to register their land and microchip ID their animals, which their parents will not want to agree to, nor afford. None of us would be able to even have a couple of hens for eggs without participating in this. (see www.farmandranchfreedom.org, and www.libertyark.net, and arkansasanimalproducers.8k.com)

Additionally, our food supplements are constantly i danger, both from codex allimentarius and our own lawmakers. (see www.healthfreedomusa.org)
Ron Paul's HR2117 explained at that site.

food and supplements should be one of the main items

we need food. we need freedom. we need food freedom.