Should Ron Paul/(we) associate gov't spending and corruption more?

[Smiley Gladhands]

Without attacking particular candidates who may be associated with corruption and scandals related to spending, should Ron Paul maybe talk about the fact that where there is larger government, there is more room for corruption such as no-bid contracts and questionable relationships between politicians and other private contractors? Maybe play the Blackwater card?

Maybe the Kerik/Giuliani thing can be implied but not stated directly.

The fact is, America doesn't trust politicians, with good reason. Ron Paul should show them it's because the size of government corrupts the process and leads to inefficiency and shady dealings. Without pointing any fingers I think it might allow people to see that government has actually been their problem, rather than the savior everyone has made it out to be.

We, the grassroots could maybe play up this message as well, though I'd rather see Ron sending this message because too many people just don't connect the dots, and I think Ron could portray that message effectively and take a little jab at his opponents.

I think in order to win some people over he's going to have to show that he can deal with other candidates' inconsistencies, if not outright attack them.

Agree or disagree?

[Eric21ND]

He should bring up that the American people are tired of this unfair cronyism in government. We need qualified people running things not corruption.

[Smiley Gladhands]

He should bring up that the American people are tired of this unfair cronyism in government. We need qualified people running things not corruption.

Exactly...the low approval ratings for every branch of government are due to the public's annoyance with the corruption of things. And they don't realize that Ron Paul is different....however he can SAY forecefully that he's different and has 2 decades-worth of consistent voting and consistent stances, and will DEFININTELY shrink the size government thereby lowering the corruption and waste, leading to an improved economy with a stronger dollar....all while keeping the heavy hand of government off the citizen's back.

I'd like to hear something like that in a debate.

Personally I'd like to see less focus on Iraq too, because the neocons can keep repeating that the surge is working and quote statistics, while ignoring the fact that no matter how low casualty rates get in Iraq we're NEVER really leaving Iraq if our neocon politicians have anything to say about it. It'll just be another on a long list of bases in a long list of countries costing Americans a whole heck of a lot of dollars.

And seriously....I just thought of this horribly sad fact: our empire is going to cost a LOT more if the dollar keeps going down. The foreign exchange rate keeps getting worse, costing more inn dollar terms for every service or good they have to puchase overseas. So they create more dollars to pay the bills, so the dollar goes down further so it ends up costing more to maintain those European bases, and so forth possibly. :eek:

[justinc.1089]

I think he should keep on with what he is saying now, and try to answer about Iraq quickly and talk about something else when asked that, because thats all he gets asked about mainly and everyone knows he wants to leave Iraq. So since he does not get other questions, he should answer that in like one sentence and change the subject for the rest of his answer.

I think he should mention how the income tax is illegal though. If he said that and people heard that, and knew they were being illegally taxed, he would gain votes just from that alone probably.

The corporate corruption is something a lot of Americans don't believe or don't want to. My father likes Paul but will not accept the fact that Iraq is mainly over oil, and that it is hurting America when politicians help corporations. He won't accept that because it sounds like you're saying communism and regulation of corporations is better, even though saying government helping corporations is bad is not saying the corporations should be regulated or controlled either. They just shouldn't benefit from government corruption. But people like my father don't see it that way, and will not accept that its happening, or that its bad.

They also won't buy the connections between the media, the fed, the income tax, and the government/politicians. This type of thing is too much for the average voter to believe or accept.

I mean even the fact that we need to leave Iraq is too much for a lot of people to accept. My grandfather can't accept that as the truth because he sees America through the way it was right after WW2. He thinks we need to stay and "win," but can't accept that this is really a no-win war unlike World War 2.

[paulitics]

I think it is the number one concern on AMerican's mind. 11% approval rating. We should capitalize on this.

[walt]

yes :)

[rwl4]

However, I know when I was an outsider, whenever I'd hear somebody talk about the corruption of the government, I tried to not believe it. A lot of people are afraid to take the red pill. They don't want to become outcasts. I've had a lot of success with friends by just pointing out very obvious facts like inflation, and describing how their savings accounts don't keep up with inflation. I also bring up the fact that all that money spent on war could be much better spent here. I tell them that Ron Paul is the only man who will fight for us on those points. That usually wins them over. On the other hand, I've found that whenever I bring up anything that sounds negative about our government or politicians directly, their eyes tend to glaze over.

[freelance]

Should Ron Paul/(we) associate gov't spending and corruption more?

It doesn't matter. The American public made that connection for themselves.

[Smiley Gladhands]

It doesn't matter. The American public made that connection for themselves.

My Thai hair-cutter and I were talking about taxes today, and she just LOVED the fact that her tips were taxed (then she went on to talk about how in chinatown they'll give discounts for using cash, since they won't have to report it as income). She said since the roads here are so much nicer than anywhere else that she's happy as can be to pay those taxes on her tips. I tried to get in a point or two about corruption and waste (not to mention the fact that gas taxes usually pay for roads), but she didn't buy it.

A lot of people don't see the connection between the size of government and corruption. They hate the Abromoff scandals and the Bush administration scandals and the lying and cheating and $3000 hammers and the Halliburtons and Blackwater immunities, etc.....yet they don't realize that the culprit is the size of government....and I think Ron Paul needs to point out that nearly anyone who is proposing new government programs and additional spending, and even more restriction on business, is part of the same corrupt, wasteful machine which exists nowadays.

[Smiley Gladhands]

bump to push down Glen Beck threads.