I pride myself in maintaining an objective, logical outlook, but the sum of the minutiae of disadvantageous inconsistencies reported by the mainstream media on Ron Paul’s campaign begs a consideration of almost conspiratorial bent.
Try to ignore the dissemination of the administration’s faulty rhetoric and galvanize your presence on this campaign trail. Tally your support/nonsupport for the Ron Paul phenomenon at ronpaulitic.com - the only worldwide, realtime Ron Paul geo-tag map on the web.
Posted by Jay Lim on Mar 15, 2012 at 6:48 AM
Leonard,
I think you’ve touched on something profound. While you and I may not agree about how the money is spent, we do agree that there has to be a limit on how much is spent. Above all other issues, the cessation of deficit spending/non funding liabilities should be foremost. ‘In these times’ especially, such an initiative should enjoy widespread bipartisan support. With the aforementioned limitations in place everyone would have a crucial keen sense of the actual cost to themselves of government programs.
Posted by Charles Beck on Mar 15, 2012 at 8:38 AM
I don’t think there’s anything said in here that’s not true, or that it’s not worth noting, but giving Ron Paul even another inch, another ounce of credibility is dangerous to successfully pulling the left back together. We all know we’re splintered and could mount an effective social movement, infinitely greater than what Occupy has already started, and Paul’s appeals to those wandering lefties or potential left sympathizers poses a major threat. Yeah, he wants to legalize weed and end the war in Iraq. Great.
But this guy’s attitudes and philosophies regarding economics and economic policy here at home are despicable and just as tyrannical, as antithetical to liberty as the war machine he opposes. I won’t give him credit for anything. I’m not going to give him a pat on the back when he espouses Austrian School laissez-faire capitalism, gives Middle America a distorted account of unions and workers, and aligns himself with far-right white nationalists, or at the very least (though doubtful, given a laundry list of statements regarding race and racism) does not actively distance himself from Third Positionists and other hate groups. Just because nobody else says what needs to be said, doesn’t mean this classist and racist scum deserves any credit at all.
In These Times stands for economic and social justice. Ron Paul’s pseudo-populist rhetoric masks what is an otherwise brutal and unjust agenda, full of raw exploitation of workers and no protection for any historically marginalized groups of people.
Posted by Zack Pattin on Mar 17, 2012 at 8:05 PM
“I believe the opposite – that we should go further and have a national healthcare system like most of the modern world.”
Do you think its a good idea that such a system be run by the same unelected, unaccountable folks who run the rest of our wasteful govt programs? We all saw what happened to the ‘Social Security Fund’ - it was robbed to pay for wars and pet programs that secure blocs of votes.
The problem you seem to be trying to solve is that people with no insurance go to the hospital, are treated, and end up in debt for the rest of their lives. The most common solution seems to be to put us in debt to the service-providers at birth, and demand either our savings or servitude (or both) in return for it.
If you can come up with a completely voluntary program, one that doesn’t tax involuntarily, or force a service provider to sacrifice their own time or resources, you might have something truly worthwhile. Unfortunately, that does mean that people have the right to say no, and face the social consequences of their decision. There should be no legal consequences for abstaining from the program. It does no good to imprison or enslave the very people we pretend to be helping.
If doctors have to work harder by force, fewer people will endeavor to become the medical slaves we’ll have turned the profession into, and then we’ll have a new crisis, requiring more force to redirect engineers into the medical field and perpetual govt servitude. Then engineering students will start to play dumb, to avoid being selected, and we’ll have a subsequent lack of engineers to follow up on our lack of doctors. And when we can no longer treat people, or build machines to treat people, the system will collapse under its own weight (if not much sooner).
Posted by Richard Simpson on Mar 20, 2012 at 6:32 PM
@Zack Pattin… If I hear that 90% of white supremacists enjoy mashed potatoes, does that make mashed potatoes racist? They seem to like America and freedom, too. Are those things also evil?
Can you quote the (racist) Paul statement you find most offensive? A lot of people say they’re offended, but no one I ask can ever actually point to the actual offensive statement. They’re always backed by hearsay. Sometimes its a very elaborate and artistic bit of hearsay. Someone else said he said something, and fools trust that person’s word instead of real evidence. If its real, I’m sure you can find a real link to post, which will prove it.
Posted by Richard Simpson on Mar 20, 2012 at 6:46 PM
@Zack Pattin… One more thing - how do you justify calling Paul’s position of individual liberty tyrannical, and forced participation in an expensive political program is not tyrannical?
Health care is a good thing, but the govt is the LAST entity I would trust to run it efficiently. What has govt done to earn your respect?
Posted by Richard Simpson on Mar 20, 2012 at 6:49 PM
The problem is that the warfare state and the welfare state are two sides of the same coin.
There’s a reason that LBJ brought us both the great society and the vietnam war. Welfare and Warfare are forms of political control and plunder of the population. Fear and dependency. Ever see what happens for military cuts? The dependent people lash out. Same with welfare cuts. The fear side, the fear of the other, the fear of what might happen.
Welfare and Warfare are both based on the idea that a small group can properly allocate the resources of a population. The results time and time again show us that the small group never seems to have enough information. The more centralized the system the more spectacular the failures. With all eggs in one basket under one management what else would it be?
Ultimately with both welfare and warfare comes control of people. Warfare can best be seen in Obama’s recent executive order claiming the power to take whatever resources desired whenever. No private property is safe, the war machine has priority. On the welfare side health care gives life and death power to those that operate and control the political bureaucracy. It gives them the ability to like with the military limit people’s choices and allocate funds to those best connected.
Ron Paul is the only one on the stage that sees the parallel and is consistent. If one supports plunder in one area it is very difficult not to support it the other. This is why both welfare and militarism grow.
And let us not forget both welfare and warfare are funded with our money, not the political office holder’s money, nor that of their friends who benefit most.
Posted by B on Mar 21, 2012 at 7:20 PM
Reader Comments
I pride myself in maintaining an objective, logical outlook, but the sum of the minutiae of disadvantageous inconsistencies reported by the mainstream media on Ron Paul’s campaign begs a consideration of almost conspiratorial bent.
Try to ignore the dissemination of the administration’s faulty rhetoric and galvanize your presence on this campaign trail. Tally your support/nonsupport for the Ron Paul phenomenon at ronpaulitic.com - the only worldwide, realtime Ron Paul geo-tag map on the web.
Posted by Jay Lim on Mar 15, 2012 at 6:48 AM
Leonard,
I think you’ve touched on something profound. While you and I may not agree about how the money is spent, we do agree that there has to be a limit on how much is spent. Above all other issues, the cessation of deficit spending/non funding liabilities should be foremost. ‘In these times’ especially, such an initiative should enjoy widespread bipartisan support. With the aforementioned limitations in place everyone would have a crucial keen sense of the actual cost to themselves of government programs.
Posted by Charles Beck on Mar 15, 2012 at 8:38 AM
I don’t think there’s anything said in here that’s not true, or that it’s not worth noting, but giving Ron Paul even another inch, another ounce of credibility is dangerous to successfully pulling the left back together. We all know we’re splintered and could mount an effective social movement, infinitely greater than what Occupy has already started, and Paul’s appeals to those wandering lefties or potential left sympathizers poses a major threat. Yeah, he wants to legalize weed and end the war in Iraq. Great.
But this guy’s attitudes and philosophies regarding economics and economic policy here at home are despicable and just as tyrannical, as antithetical to liberty as the war machine he opposes. I won’t give him credit for anything. I’m not going to give him a pat on the back when he espouses Austrian School laissez-faire capitalism, gives Middle America a distorted account of unions and workers, and aligns himself with far-right white nationalists, or at the very least (though doubtful, given a laundry list of statements regarding race and racism) does not actively distance himself from Third Positionists and other hate groups. Just because nobody else says what needs to be said, doesn’t mean this classist and racist scum deserves any credit at all.
In These Times stands for economic and social justice. Ron Paul’s pseudo-populist rhetoric masks what is an otherwise brutal and unjust agenda, full of raw exploitation of workers and no protection for any historically marginalized groups of people.
Posted by Zack Pattin on Mar 17, 2012 at 8:05 PM
“I believe the opposite – that we should go further and have a national healthcare system like most of the modern world.”
Do you think its a good idea that such a system be run by the same unelected, unaccountable folks who run the rest of our wasteful govt programs? We all saw what happened to the ‘Social Security Fund’ - it was robbed to pay for wars and pet programs that secure blocs of votes.
The problem you seem to be trying to solve is that people with no insurance go to the hospital, are treated, and end up in debt for the rest of their lives. The most common solution seems to be to put us in debt to the service-providers at birth, and demand either our savings or servitude (or both) in return for it.
If you can come up with a completely voluntary program, one that doesn’t tax involuntarily, or force a service provider to sacrifice their own time or resources, you might have something truly worthwhile. Unfortunately, that does mean that people have the right to say no, and face the social consequences of their decision. There should be no legal consequences for abstaining from the program. It does no good to imprison or enslave the very people we pretend to be helping.
If doctors have to work harder by force, fewer people will endeavor to become the medical slaves we’ll have turned the profession into, and then we’ll have a new crisis, requiring more force to redirect engineers into the medical field and perpetual govt servitude. Then engineering students will start to play dumb, to avoid being selected, and we’ll have a subsequent lack of engineers to follow up on our lack of doctors. And when we can no longer treat people, or build machines to treat people, the system will collapse under its own weight (if not much sooner).
Posted by Richard Simpson on Mar 20, 2012 at 6:32 PM
@Zack Pattin… If I hear that 90% of white supremacists enjoy mashed potatoes, does that make mashed potatoes racist? They seem to like America and freedom, too. Are those things also evil?
Can you quote the (racist) Paul statement you find most offensive? A lot of people say they’re offended, but no one I ask can ever actually point to the actual offensive statement. They’re always backed by hearsay. Sometimes its a very elaborate and artistic bit of hearsay. Someone else said he said something, and fools trust that person’s word instead of real evidence. If its real, I’m sure you can find a real link to post, which will prove it.
Posted by Richard Simpson on Mar 20, 2012 at 6:46 PM
@Zack Pattin… One more thing - how do you justify calling Paul’s position of individual liberty tyrannical, and forced participation in an expensive political program is not tyrannical?
Health care is a good thing, but the govt is the LAST entity I would trust to run it efficiently. What has govt done to earn your respect?
Posted by Richard Simpson on Mar 20, 2012 at 6:49 PM
The problem is that the warfare state and the welfare state are two sides of the same coin.
There’s a reason that LBJ brought us both the great society and the vietnam war. Welfare and Warfare are forms of political control and plunder of the population. Fear and dependency. Ever see what happens for military cuts? The dependent people lash out. Same with welfare cuts. The fear side, the fear of the other, the fear of what might happen.
Welfare and Warfare are both based on the idea that a small group can properly allocate the resources of a population. The results time and time again show us that the small group never seems to have enough information. The more centralized the system the more spectacular the failures. With all eggs in one basket under one management what else would it be?
Ultimately with both welfare and warfare comes control of people. Warfare can best be seen in Obama’s recent executive order claiming the power to take whatever resources desired whenever. No private property is safe, the war machine has priority. On the welfare side health care gives life and death power to those that operate and control the political bureaucracy. It gives them the ability to like with the military limit people’s choices and allocate funds to those best connected.
Ron Paul is the only one on the stage that sees the parallel and is consistent. If one supports plunder in one area it is very difficult not to support it the other. This is why both welfare and militarism grow.
And let us not forget both welfare and warfare are funded with our money, not the political office holder’s money, nor that of their friends who benefit most.
Posted by B on Mar 21, 2012 at 7:20 PM