Ron Paul supporters, what do you disagree with Ron Paul on?

[Dr.Drock]

I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I think this thread needed to be made.


I disagree with him that a Fed can't work, I agree with him that THIS Fed doesn't work.


I think his view on evolution is an embarassment. It spits in the fact of common sense and science, especially for a doctor who had to deal with the flu.



But he's better than the others and it's not even close. I don't have to agree with a politician on everything, he/she just has to be for fiscal responsibility and a small federal gov't.



What say you?

 

[PredFan]

I disagree with him on his foreign policy. It's silly to believe that if you leave people alone that they will leave you alone. These sub-humans are hell bent on controlling the world in one way or another and being the major superpower, we are a target.

That said, I don't fear a RP presidency since simply being POTUS doesn't mean he can just do whatever he wants to. Separation of powers and all that.

 

[manifold]

Crazy Ron Paul is still a better option than sane anybody else in the mix.

Sad but true.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Crazy Ron Paul is still a better option than sane anybody else in the mix.

Sad but true.

As a supporter, or at least someone who supports him more than the others, what's the main thing about him you disagree with?

 

[Paulie]

Some of his libertarian views can be at odds with what could be considered a greater good.

I've done a lot of thinking about his views on the civil rights act and I'm coming around on that issue. I don't see it as terrible that the government would guarantee a group the right to not be discriminated against. I understand his reasoning on it, that taking away property rights can lead to a slippery slope, but the people need to stay aware of what their government is doing and not allow them to take advantage of any precedent that may have been set.

 

[manifold]

Crazy Ron Paul is still a better option than sane anybody else in the mix.

Sad but true.

As a supporter, or at least someone who supports him more than the others, what's the main thing about him you disagree with?

You already mentioned his lunacy regarding evolution. But that's not an issue that moves the needle much for me. But I also disagree with him regarding the appropriate level of government regulation on business. Philosophically I'd say we both agree that the best level is the minimum effective level, but I think his view on what would be effective is incredibly naive.

 

[LibertyForAll]

I wasn't aware of his belief in creationism but in my mind its irrelevant. I am an evolutionist so I would disagree with him on that. I don't believe that he would prevent evolution from being taught though and that's what's important to me.

I haven't found much else that I disagree with. I keep looking though.

 

[Paulie]

To me, most of his social views are irrelevant because he wouldn't legislate them at the federal level.

I can't find a single thing I disagree with on his economic and foreign policy. We spend more money and effort guarding foreign nations' borders while we have ours wide open for any terrorist to carry a suit case nuke across and blow up a city.

That will never make any sense to me.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Some of his libertarian views can be at odds with what could be considered a greater good.

I've done a lot of thinking about his views on the civil rights act and I'm coming around on that issue. I don't see it as terrible that the government would guarantee a group the right to not be discriminated against. I understand his reasoning on it, that taking away property rights can lead to a slippery slope, but the people need to stay aware of what their government is doing and not allow them to take advantage of any precedent that may have been set.

I have been thinking a lot about this. I actually agree with Paulie here and I would say that it comes down to (for me) the line between where one persons rights end and anothers begin. I would be willing to sacrifice a little of my personal freedom to preserve the rights of others. I understand where he is coming from but I think maybe he goes too far on this. In this case a persons right to be treated as an equal should supercede anothers right to treat them with inequality.

 

[WatertheTree]

I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I think this thread needed to be made.


I disagree with him that a Fed can't work, I agree with him that THIS Fed doesn't work.


I think his view on evolution is an embarassment. It spits in the fact of common sense and science, especially for a doctor who had to deal with the flu.



But he's better than the others and it's not even close. I don't have to agree with a politician on everything, he/she just has to be for fiscal responsibility and a small federal gov't.



What say you?

I disagree with Ron Paul on returning to the gold standard. There is simply not enough gold in currency to support a modern economy, not to mention gold is easily manipulated, and was manipulated before we went fiat. We absolutely must get away from debt based money.

Solutions offered in the documentary 'money masters' which is easily found on the internet is the best solution I have ever seen.


I also disagree with Ron Paul on social security. There is a clear need for a social safety net, however it should not be an entitlement. If you were prosperous in your life that you do not need it then dont take it. I just believe that everyone that worked hard through there life deserves to be able to put there feet up and relax in the end. Even if all you contributed to society was taking orders at McDonalds.

 

[Paulie]

I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I think this thread needed to be made.


I disagree with him that a Fed can't work, I agree with him that THIS Fed doesn't work.


I think his view on evolution is an embarassment. It spits in the fact of common sense and science, especially for a doctor who had to deal with the flu.



But he's better than the others and it's not even close. I don't have to agree with a politician on everything, he/she just has to be for fiscal responsibility and a small federal gov't.



What say you?

I disagree with Ron Paul on returning to the gold standard. There is simply not enough gold in currency to support a modern economy, not to mention gold is easily manipulated, and was manipulated before we went fiat. We absolutely must get away from debt based money.

Solutions offered in the documentary 'money masters' which is easily found on the internet is the best solution I have ever seen.


I also disagree with Ron Paul on social security. There is a clear need for a social safety net, however it should not be an entitlement. If you were prosperous in your life that you do not need it then dont take it. I just believe that everyone that worked hard through there life deserves to be able to put there feet up and relax in the end. Even if all you contributed to society was taking orders at McDonalds.

The amount of actual gold is irrelevant in a real gold standard. Congress has the authority to regulate the value of money and fix weights and measures, so how much actual gold there is means little to nothing.

As far as SS, Paul's compromise on that is perfect. Allow citizens to opt out of the program. You pay no FICA tax, and you receive no benefits. You keep your money and invest it in your retirement how you see fit.

 

[manifold]

As far as SS, Paul's compromise on that is perfect. Allow citizens to opt out of the program. You pay no FICA tax, and you receive no benefits. You keep your money and invest it in your retirement how you see fit.

@ the fact that you call that a 'compromise'.

 

[Paulie]

As far as SS, Paul's compromise on that is perfect. Allow citizens to opt out of the program. You pay no FICA tax, and you receive no benefits. You keep your money and invest it in your retirement how you see fit.

@ the fact that you call that a 'compromise'.

How isn't it? The dems get to keep their program, and the program manages to stay solvent with liabilities reducing to manageable levels.

 

[manifold]

As far as SS, Paul's compromise on that is perfect. Allow citizens to opt out of the program. You pay no FICA tax, and you receive no benefits. You keep your money and invest it in your retirement how you see fit.

@ the fact that you call that a 'compromise'.

How isn't it? The dems get to keep their program, and the program manages to stay solvent with liabilities reducing to manageable levels.

If people are allowed to opt out, for better or worse the program dies. That's not my idea of a compromise.

 

[Paulie]

@ the fact that you call that a 'compromise'.

How isn't it? The dems get to keep their program, and the program manages to stay solvent with liabilities reducing to manageable levels.

If people are allowed to opt out, for better or worse the program dies. That's not my idea of a compromise.

That's not a valid assumption. I admittedly have never seen any kind of survey done on this, but I'm hard pressed to assume a majority of people would choose not to have a government backed retirement account.

I'd love to know your reasoning on why you think they would.

 

[manifold]

How isn't it? The dems get to keep their program, and the program manages to stay solvent with liabilities reducing to manageable levels.

If people are allowed to opt out, for better or worse the program dies. That's not my idea of a compromise.

That's not a valid assumption. I admittedly have never seen any kind of survey done on this, but I'm hard pressed to assume a majority of people would choose not to have a government backed retirement account.

I'd love to know your reasoning on why you think they would.

I'd opt out in a second. In fact, I don't personally know a single person that wouldn't. I imagine that only poor people wouldn't opt out, and therein lies the reason it would die... lack of funding.

 

[Paulie]

If people are allowed to opt out, for better or worse the program dies. That's not my idea of a compromise.

That's not a valid assumption. I admittedly have never seen any kind of survey done on this, but I'm hard pressed to assume a majority of people would choose not to have a government backed retirement account.

I'd love to know your reasoning on why you think they would.

I'd opt out in a second. In fact, I don't personally know a single person that wouldn't. I imagine that only poor people wouldn't opt out, and therein lies the reason it would die... lack of funding.

Why would poor people choose not to have that extra 6.2% of income in their pockets?

If anyone it's the poor and middle class that need it the most.

 

[LibertyForAll]

I think I read that his idea was to pull back troops and end the wars and take the money saved from that to shore up social security and put the money back into it that was taken from it. This would go a long way towards saving it. He hasn't said he would end social security so I'm not sure where thats coming from. He may think its unconstitutional but he realizes that people have come to depend on it and believes that giving the option to opt out of it will bring an eventually weaning off of it. Thats how I understood his position anyway.

 

[manifold]

That's not a valid assumption. I admittedly have never seen any kind of survey done on this, but I'm hard pressed to assume a majority of people would choose not to have a government backed retirement account.

I'd love to know your reasoning on why you think they would.

I'd opt out in a second. In fact, I don't personally know a single person that wouldn't. I imagine that only poor people wouldn't opt out, and therein lies the reason it would die... lack of funding.

Why would poor people choose not to have that extra 6.2% of income in their pockets?

If anyone it's the poor and middle class that need it the most.

Fair point. So I guess pretty much everyone would opt out.

You may disagree that most would opt out, but I have to believe you agree that every single self-employed person in the country (getting whacked double) would for shit sure opt out. That alone would likely be enough to kill it.

 

[Paulie]

The poor and many middle class don't have much disposable income to open a private retirement account.

The markets, while volatile, still present the largest rate of return with an annualized rate of roughly 10% over the last 25 years, which includes the market's most volatile time periods.

As people educate themselves more, they will prefer to have that money to invest how they see fit, if they truly do care about having a retirement and not having to work at 70 years old.

The conundrum is how many people will be willing to educate themselves and take that chance, and how many would prefer to let the government do the work?

I don't see any logical reason to assume anything specific either way at this point.

I just know that at a bare minimum, it can be expected that people will opt out and liabilities will decrease.

What's the alternative? Keep raising the retirement age until people die before taking benefits?