PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul's legislation success rate?




AndyW
03-05-2012, 08:34 PM
Found this on wiki:

"Of the 620 bills that Paul had sponsored through December 2011, over a period of more than 22 years in Congress, only one had been signed into law — a lifetime success rate of less than 0.3%."

Does anyone have a more possitive angle on this issue? It appears bad. One might say his intentions are good but can he get stuff done?

Many thanks.

Travlyr
03-05-2012, 08:40 PM
It would have been good for Americans if he would have had more support. Congress has a horrible record helping Americans.

Here are three examples that should have been slam dunks.

H.R. 3408
Ron Paul's - "A Foreign Policy of Freedom (http://mises.org/books/foreign_policy_freedom_paul.pdf)"
In 1979, our federal government granted the Communist regime in Poland an additional $500 million in loans and loan guarantees.
[...]
Why does our government continue to subsidize the Communists in Poland? Whose side is our government on, the Polish Communists or the Polish workers?

I believe that we should have a consistent foreign policy of nonintervention in the affairs of other countries. We should certainly not be subsidizing a dictatorial regime that is not supported by its own people. It is outrageous that taxes paid by the American people - people who sympathize with the Polish workers, not the Communist government have been and are being used to prop up that government. I have introduced legislation that would end such foreign subsidies, H.R. 3408, and I intend to push for its passage through Congress. Our irrational policy of subsidizing those who hate freedom must be stopped.


H.R. 1098

Rep. Paul introduced the Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011, H.R. 1098, in the United States House of Representatives on March 15, 2011.


H.R.1207 - Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009

To amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes.

brushfire
03-05-2012, 08:57 PM
RP is definitely a .03 percenter as far as politicians are concerned.

Compare his so called "success rate" with that of congress's average approval rating, over the same period.

Drill down into that number and look at some of the bills he's submitted, and when. Grab some of RP's floor speeches from 2001 and 2002. Ron Paul's success rate is actually a reflection of how serious congress has been about addressing the issues this country faces. In other words, it reflects congress's 99.97% failure rate.

pcosmar
03-05-2012, 09:04 PM
:( /thread

It is a failure of the rest. It is a failure of the people that elected them.

Ron has also been the one vote against some really bad shit.

thoughtomator
03-05-2012, 09:04 PM
When you look at the laws that have been passed in that time, it's hardly appropriate to call it a success.

In fact, the reason so many of us are for Ron Paul is because the laws aren't successful at all, at doing anything we want to do at least.

Keith and stuff
03-05-2012, 09:06 PM
He has sponsored amendments that have passed. Also, there was a partial audit of the federal reserve because of him. He had a bill that has the support of the House but it didn't work out so a senator got the partial audit though. Anyway, about passing bills, a pro-liberty person generally supporter fewer as opposed to more bills passing. Most of Paul's bills, unlike almost everyone else, were good things designed to reduce the size of the government, so of course they didn't pass.

MikeStanart
03-05-2012, 09:08 PM
Being disappointed in a Legistlators success rate is like being disappointed in a serial killer's attempted murder rate.

moderate libertarian
03-05-2012, 10:17 PM
Found this on wiki:

"Of the 620 bills that Paul had sponsored through December 2011, over a period of more than 22 years in Congress, only one had been signed into law — a lifetime success rate of less than 0.3%."

Does anyone have a more possitive angle on this issue? It appears bad. One might say his intentions are good but can he get stuff done?

Many thanks.

This is one tiny liberty glimpse of the results of direction we have been going in past 22 or more years, clearly RP used be a lone voice in opposition but so is case for all prophets early on when majority is in the wrong and slowly wakes up:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b_glTGOhaA&feature=fvsr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b_glTGOhaA&feature=fvsr





TX bill banning TSA from touching “anus, sexual organ, breast” is dead

Jun 30, 2011 ... Lawmakers in the Lone Star State adjourned their special session Wednesday
without passing SB 29, a bill that would have limited ...

http://www.examiner.com/libertarian-in-national/tx-bill-banning-tsa-from-touching-anus-sexual-organ-breast-is-dead

SL89
03-06-2012, 01:36 AM
OK. This is ticking me off. When you have have so many congressmen in the pockets of big money and the good Doctor is the ONLY one to stand up for our inherent rights. People still have the nerve to question how he can accomplish anything. He has accomplished more than you know. And if he wins, it will send shudders down the spines of the establishment. He would have the reigns, so to speak. Hell, I could cry at the thought. But, I won't cry, not until this republic is restored. Until then I will fight to the bloody end. The OP asked an honest question and I'll give an honest answer.....If Ron Paul does not win, I will stand in arms against the tyranny because we are so wrought with fraud it is not funny. Even the jokes are not funny anymore. A man of integrity finally makes it onto your radar and the first thing you do is attack the man because he has no alliances....Sounds like a wimp to me.

AndyW
03-06-2012, 04:35 AM
These are some awesome points guys. Thanks for reminding me. I think the answer was obvious but I needed it crystalizing. I'd like to ask that you guys go here to see what I'm up against (maybe join in?):

https://www.facebook.com/classwarfareexists/posts/377652032263044

It's a very long argument (apologies for the swearing and insulting, it's a bit immature but I too am deeply passionate about this issue). If you want to cut to the chase in terms of THIS issue, it's right at the bottom, the mosts current comments.

I would encourage folk to take a look because THIS is what you're up against. A glimpse into the mind set of the Ron Paul hater - even when they're confronted with the facts.

noneedtoaggress
03-06-2012, 04:44 AM
For more insight...


At the time I was convinced, like Ludwig von Mises, that no one
could succeed in politics without serving the special interests of some
politically powerful pressure group.
Although I was eventually elected, in terms of a conventional political
career with real Washington impact, he was absolutely right. I
have not developed legislative influence with the leadership of the
Congress or the administration. Monies are deliberately deleted from
routine water works bills for my district because I do not condone the
system, nor vote for any of the appropriations.
My influence, such as it is, comes only by educating others about
the rightness of the free market. The majority of the voters in my district
have approved, as have those familiar with free-market economics.
And voters in other districts, encouraged by my speaking out for
freedom and sound money, influence their representatives in the
direction of a free market. My influence comes through education, not
the usual techniques of a politician. But the more usual politicians in
Congress will hardly solve our problems. Americans need a better
understanding of Austrian economics. Only then will politicians
become more statesmanlike.



When exasperated with the current state of affairs, we must
remember Mises’s admonishment: “No one should expect that any logical
argument or any experience could shake the almost religious fervor
of those who believe in salvation through spending and credit
expansion.”3
But we must also remember that it is the acceptance of economic
interventionism that breeds this disease of demagoguery that plagues
the thinking and speech of the politicians.
After coming to believe in themselves as planners and decision-makers
for consumers, businesspeople, and working people, the politicians
soon can arrogantly rationalize any position for any reason. It wouldn’t
be as bad if they knew they were demagogues—at least this would be
honest. But this arrogance becomes a way of life, and the tool to achieve
their next “important and necessary” intervention.
It is only with full assurance gained from Austrian economics, and
the example of Mises’s character, that I am able to tolerate the daily
circus of Congress.
Economic knowledge is not nearly as scarce in Washington as one
might suspect from a superficial observation of Congress. Other Congressmen
frequently express sound judgments to me privately
regarding deficits and runaway expenditures. What they lack is the
will to resist the pressure groups. As desperately as we need a better
economic understanding, even more we need Mises’s trait of gentlemanly
firmness on issues of principle. Character is more necessary
than eloquence in economic theory.
Jacques Rueff described well this quality of Mises’s:

With an indefatigable enthusiasm, and with courage and faith
undaunted, he has never ceased to denounce the fallacious reasons
and untruths offered to justify most of our new institutions.
. . . No consideration whatever can divert him in the least from
the straight steep path where his cold reason guides him. In the
irrationalism of our era he has remained a person of pure reason.
4

Murray Rothbard in The Essential Ludwig von Mises writes that
Mises:

reacted to the darkening economic world around him with a lifetime
of high courage and personal integrity. Never would Ludwig
von Mises bend to the winds of change that he saw to the
unfortunate and disastrous; neither changes in political economy
nor in the discipline of economics could bring him to
swerve a single iota from pursuing and propounding the truth as
he saw it.5



http://mises.org/books/paulmises.pdf

A Son of Liberty
03-06-2012, 05:04 AM
In addition to the great points others have made regarding Ron being the lone voice of sanity, also consider that we do not need a president to pass legislation - we need a president who will veto spending, hamstring the out of control executive branch, and end wars on a whim. These are the 3 most important things for this country right now, and NO OTHER CANDIDATE, NOR THE ENCUMBENT other than Ron will do these things. That is as certain as this morning's sunrise.

Ron doesn't need to be able to build coalitions. All Ron will need on January 21, 2013 is a sledgehammer.

Pericles
03-06-2012, 10:45 AM
These are some awesome points guys. Thanks for reminding me. I think the answer was obvious but I needed it crystalizing. I'd like to ask that you guys go here to see what I'm up against (maybe join in?):

https://www.facebook.com/classwarfareexists/posts/377652032263044

It's a very long argument (apologies for the swearing and insulting, it's a bit immature but I too am deeply passionate about this issue). If you want to cut to the chase in terms of THIS issue, it's right at the bottom, the mosts current comments.

I would encourage folk to take a look because THIS is what you're up against. A glimpse into the mind set of the Ron Paul hater - even when they're confronted with the facts.

Unfortunately, Dr. Paul has had the same success rate as we have had in trying to get the government to adhere to the US Constitution.

The concept has to be expressed in a short and simple form that the average person can mentally process between text messages and tweets.