1. His underlying philosophy of life
• A rabid follower of Ayn Rand, whose primary thesis was that selfishness is a virtue. Rand’s philosophy
permeates his political positions.
I believe the contrary – that we are here to learn selflessness and serve others (which, ironically, is
what Paul’s deity, Jesus, taught).
While Rand used the word "selfishness," she was actually talking about "self-interest". There is a big difference,
as "self-interest" takes into account consensus for mutual
benefit. If by "selflessness," and "Jesus," you are speaking of a "martyr complex," that is NOT Christianity.
Your life is just as important as others.
• Doesn’t accept the theory of evolution and apparently believes God created the world in 7 days. What
decisions would someone with such a world view make?
Is what he says about such other things as far from the truth as this?
This is an absolutely bogus argument, since all of the candidate's running at least give "lip service" to this belief. Besides, Darwin's theory is based on scientific observations and doesn't provide absolute answers.
2. The environment
• “The greatest hoax .. has been ..global warming”, says Paul. He believes internet self proclaimed
“experts” rather than 97% (in an independent poll) of professional climatologists.
Loss of life from runaway temperature rise would far eclipse that of any war. This, IMO, is the
bottom line issue of our age, and it alone prevents me from backing Paul.
Guess you have never heard of "Climategate" or that the former head of the National Weather Service doesn't buy "global warming," either. Besides, if carbon emissions are
the cause, how come the ENTIRE solar system is rapidly experiencing "climate change"?
• He would abolish the EPA. The EPA has problems due to corporate/political influence, but without it,
corporations would be completely free to pollute without constraint. Does this make sense?
No, your argument certainly doesn't. The WORST polluter in the US is the United States Government, from the radioactive muck in Hanford, Washington to the US military shipyards.
Besides, Paul would eliminate much of the "crony capitalism," which makes it so easy for corporations to avoid litigation as a result of "class action suits". If the BP Gulf of Mexico oil cleanup is any example, the EPA is an utter failure.
• “We had no business helping the Jews in WW II”, Paul told staffers, many times. Was it peace the Jews
were experiencing? How can any supposed advocate of peace and saving human life take this position?
According to the NEW YORK TIMES, Roosevelt and Churchill knew about the concentration camps, yet made NO effort to
stop the internment and extermination of those in the camps.
Worse, most governments around the world refused to accept
Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, etc as "political refugees". See the movie "Voyage of the Damned" (true story) from a dramatization of this abomination. Besides, before Roosevelt began committing economic "acts of war," the US was not even a target for attacks by the AXIS powers.
• He opposed stopping Gadhafi from slaughtering 100,000 people. We shouldn’t have to pay even
minimum cost (some air support and no American lives) for someone else fighting for life and liberty? Is
this not unbridled selfishness bearing the label of “peace”?
Watch some of the videos of what NATO "peacekeepers" have done to civilians in Libya. Many of the rebels who fought Gadhafi are Al Qaeda or some other group of radical Islam.
If you are so willing to fight for "life and liberty" in Libya, why don't YOU pick up a gun and go over there and do it. Ron Paul is fighting for "life" and "liberty" right here in the good old USA, thank you very much.
• His peace position is actually an isolationist position, based primarily on US interests (in the “me first”
tradition of Ayn Rand). He does not truly care for peace for mankind, but rather for what is good for him
and his country, and this is sold by his campaign as “peace”. He is no adherent of the “world is my
family” philosophy. See my previous answer, plus the fact that the US has been involved in one "no-win," undeclared war after another since we joined NATO and that "family of nations," the UN.
4. Ravaging the lower and middle classes
• Abolish capital gains tax. Why should money people don’t work for (capital gains) be taxed at a lower
(zero in this case) rate than money people work for? The wealthy have a large part of their income from
capital gains, but the lower and middle classes have virtually none. This is a shift of the tax burden from
the wealthy to the non-wealthy.
Why isn't taxation based on who benefits the most from them?
Seems to me that would be those who get handouts from the government. Besides, Dr. Paul supports the Constitution, which allows for direct taxation ONLY when it is proportionally but evenly distributed throughout the population. In other words, every pays the same.
• Institute a consumption (sales) tax. The lower and middle classes spend virtually 100% of their income
just to live. The wealthiest spend less than 10%. A sales tax means the wealthy would pay a far lower
percentage of their income in taxes than everyone else.
Without our overseas meddling and unconstitutional government programs, neither an income tax nor a national sales tax would be necessary.
• Abolish government student loans. I and millions of others never would have gone to college without
government loans. Aside from the personal devastation, loss of earning power, and reduced ability to
realize the American dream for so many, the country as a whole would have lower average education
level, and thus be less competitive in the global marketplace.
Government aid to education is an investment in the country and its people, not an expense.
Why should a farmer in Iowa, a waitress in Indiana or an
auto worker in Detroit, none of whom has a college education,
pay for you to go to a university and major in "frat parties"? Besides, the cost of education has skyrocketed since the advent of student loans and government involvement in education. As a result, students today are graduating with huge personal debts and the jobs they expected to have to pay for the loans have been destroyed by an economy the government and the banks ruined.
• Cut corporate taxes. Corporate taxes are paid on profit. They do not adversely affect a company’s
operation, which involves before profit expense. Profits are paid as dividends to shareholders, in large
part, to the wealthy. Cutting corporate profits would increase income to the wealthy, reduce federal
revenues, and effectively shift the tax burden to middle and low income folks.
The US has one of the highest corporate taxes in the developed world. Most of the other countries with lower corporate tax rates are doing better than us, as corporations are like consumers, they go for where the savings are. Besides, corporate taxes are ultimately paid by the consumer in the form of higher costs. There is no "free lunch" unless you have friends at the Fed.
• Paul believes fervently in Jesus, who tirelessly advocated helping the poor. Where is Paul’s concern for
the working poor? He has plenty of programs helping the wealthy, but none for the poor. He opposes a
minimum wage. I’d like one people who want to work can live on without food stamps. Dr. Paul proposes legislation to prevent the IRS from collecting taxes on tips and wants to ultimately abolish the income tax. The "minimum wage" discourages employers from hiring that "extra worker." However, labor unions LOVE increases in the minimum wage, because they can "ratchet up" their wage demands when it increases. Besides, a "minimum wage" is a form of "price fixing" and is unconstitutional.
• Remove regulations (however weak) recently put in place on Wall Street. Deregulation gave us the
savings and loan debacle of the 1980s and the present recession. How can anyone favor this?
"Crony capitalism" gave us the savings and loan debacle of the 1980s and the present recession, and Ron Paul steadfastly
opposes "crony capitalism".
• Remove regulations on corporations. He sees no need for regulations for such things as clean air/water
and safety testing Monsanto’s GM food. Do we really want to remove what little regulation exists
protecting the environment and consumers?
Since corporate lobbyists WRITE the regulations, many, if not most regulations are designed to drive out competition, not protect the consumer. Besides, Dr. Paul has been highly critical of the "corporations are people" philosophy that has
permeated the political and judicial processes since the beginning of the Progressive era.
6. Health care crisis
• Tax credits for insurance premiums (after repealing Obamacare). This is no help to the 45 million low
income, low tax paying folks without health care, which I thought was the problem. The government
would essentially pay for health care for high income folks who already have it, but not for low income
folks who don’t. Is this a solution or a further shifting of resources from the non-wealthy to the wealthy?
Dr. Paul, who I am sure knows a bit more about the delivery of medicine than you, wants "health care freedom". Our present system plays to the drug companies, insurance companies and AMA, who practice the most inefficient health care imaginable. Dr. Paul wants to eliminate the present restrictions on "insurance pooling," which prevents affordable health care insurance to be available to more people.
• No plans to control costs, such as imposing price constraints on an out-of-control profit driven medical
industry that can with impunity charge anything they want. With your life on the line, you have to pay
whatever is asked.
Price controls don't work. They simply produce shortages. Always have. "Health care freedom" would introduce competition to "main-stream medicine," thus driving down costs.
7. Paul would be 77 on taking office.
• I’m a senior citizen myself, but ….
Ronald Reagan was 70 when he took office and was, arguably, one of our best presidents. Besides, life expectancies are up considerably over the last century and "70 is the new 50".
Of course, this is also a good reason for Dr. Paul to take a like-minded person as his VP.
8. The economy
• Return to the gold standard. Economists note that monetary policy would be set by gold miners in South
Africa and Uzbekistan. As one said, "If you like what OPEC means for oil prices, you'd love what the
gold standard would do to financial markets."
Presently, monetary policy is set by the same people who gave us the Great Depression, the Savings and Loan Debacle and every recession since the Fed was created. Besides, wouldn't you prefer to carry real money rather than IOUs from crooked bankers?
9. Most ultra-right member of congress over 65 years
Based on statistics in Am Jour Polit Sci, Paul had the most conservative voting record of over 3,000 house
and senate members from 1937 to 2002. Does the country really need more extremism?
No, the country needs someone so principled he has received praise from notables of all political persuasions, such as Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Dylan Ratigan, "Morning Joe" Scarborough, Barry Goldwater, Jr., Pat Buchanan, Governor Jesse Ventura, Jon Stewart, Joy Behar, Bill Maher Jay Leno, Oliver Stone, Sarah Palin and Meghan McCain, Senator John McCain's daughter.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and commen