This will be an analysis, looking at his poitions. And I want feedback on what you think about this.
Part 1
Ron Paul's Positions:
1) Cutting five Federal departments:
- Department of Energy
- Department of Education
- EPA
- Federal Reserve
- H.U.D.
2) Phasing out Social Programs
- Social Security
- Medicaid
- Medicare
- State Supplemental Income
3) National Security:
- Cutting Defence Budget in Half
- Removing All Foregin Military Bases
- Removing American Military Presence Beyond the 360 Notical Miles of the U.S. Declared Protection Zones Off Our Coast.
- Lifting All U.S. Santions on Foregin Nations
- Stopping ALL Foregin Military Assistance (Israel)
4) Economic Policy:
- Their isn't one really. It's as broad as "Hope and Change". It only means what you want it to mean personaly. This is how "Movements" are sustained, IE: Obama '08. It's "Liberty to chose and controll your own destiny". On substance, what does that really mean for an economic policy?
- Propery Rights Returned to the Individual.
The problem with Ron Paul is that he does not have enough time to describe his positions. The media and his detractors say "Ron you are against this, correct?" and he says "yes" and that is it. Our system is so flawed currently that if anyone ever wanted to change it, they'd have to give a long drawn out explanation.
It's be like if I took over WWE and I said Orton and Cena would no longer be stars. On the surface, people would be like "is he stupid? Orton and Cena are you biggest draws!"
What they didn't know is that I had a plan, the same way someone like Paul Heyman might have a plan if he could take over WWE. Just because Cena and Orton aren't "stars" or headliners, doesn't mean I wouldn't utilize them. And even if I didn't utilize them, there is still a lot I might have up my sleeve such as bringing back blood, chair shots, and having good storylines/wrestling to put on. Anyway, it could succeed or fail, but no one knows what will happen till I do it.
As for Ron Paul, you can say he's going to get rid of the Dept of Ed, but what does that mean? Paul understands economy better then any other candidate and has been in congress for decades.
Let's take this for example. Ron Paul is against foreign aid. Foreign aid is OUR tax paying dollars. So when we send Israel 3 billion a year, we are sending 3 billion dollars of american's money to Israel. If Ron Paul took over, that 3 billion would still be in America's pocket instead of over seas in Israel. And that is only Israel. Israel does in fact recieve around 3 Billion in foreign aid from America a Year! If you had 3 billion dollars a year coming ur way, you could pay 60,000 ppl 50,000 dollars a year. Now Israel isn't the only country we pay foreign aid too, so imagine the jobs we could create by stopping this act of sending our hard earned money to these foreign nations? OUR UNEMPLOYED WOULDN'T (SHOULDN'T) BE UNEMPLOYED!
When I hear someone say Ron Paul won't be elected and his ideas are impossible, it's sad, because his ideas are simple, but we are sooo use to be "corrupt" and our system is corrupt and unconstitutional. The income tax is unconsititutional and was passed corruptly.
Ron Paul is just trying to fix the system, but the problem is that we are pretty much "the mafia" and by "we," I mean the US. People are afraid for us to go "legit." We've been living fat and it's because we've been living criminal. We have our armed forces stationed all around the world and see nothing wrong with it.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter cause man is bad by nature. I use to think I could find relatable minds among the democrat/liberals but they are just as bad. It's like if a white man invades Iraq, it's the worst thing ever, if a black man does ... then obviously it's ok. And I don't mean anything by that, it's just how I see it.
Here you have a candidate with a ton of economic experience, willing to bring all the troops home, willing to release all the non-violent, marijuana related inmates which are mainly blacks, open on issues such as gay marriage, drugs, etc and leaving it up to the states and staying out of their business .... yet you don't see an upsoar of Dems backing this guy because all they care about is being Dems.
Anyway, if you vote for Paul, you'd keep all the money you'd earn and while you might not receive the medicaid you were expecting when you are 70, you'd actually make 100k a year instead of the 50k you receive after taxes.
But don't worry about that, Mitt Romney is much more capable and all the news stations are telling me he's the only one electable now that Newt Gringich isn't doing well. Romney has all the answers and if he doesn, Obama does, as we've seen the last four years. Btw, just because Obama and Romney's stances sound similiar, doesn't mean they work for the same people.
