# Ron Paul's candidacy

by Char. Limit
Tags: candidacy, paul
PF Patron
P: 2,950
 Quote by feathermoon In a big way, in fact. Economic losses due to pollution, environmental factors are huge. Coupled with high health care costs associated with both, and regulations pay for themselves MANY times over.
I was suggesting the cause and effect were mainly in the other direction, i.e. economic success enables a better environment. The Soviets attempted to prescribe every manner and detail of their economy and ended up destroying much of the environment (literally in the case of the Aral sea).
P: 1,409
 Quote by mheslep That's a circular argument, the might makes right version.
It's not a circular argument, it's the argument that might makes right. Is there really any doubt about this?

I'm considering your other statements/replies and will respond shortly.
P: 1,409
 Quote by mheslep Lower. State and local governments don't (can't) exempt themselves from insider trading laws, for instance.
Good point. But we're talking about the enforcement of environmental protection laws.

 Quote by mheslep Because, unlike the states, there is no super federal police power that can tap the President's phone, as the FBI did Blago'. At the moment the US President is in charge of his own police power run by the Attorney General. The President can fire the AG for investigating the President, and has.
Another good point. But here's the thing. What the President of the US does in terms of advocacy of particular courses of action wrt things that will affect great numbers of people is immediately, more or less, evident to the mass populace.

 Quote by mheslep Yes I see you think this. Why?
Because they're subjected to greater scrutiny. Precisely because their decisions and actions affect more people.
P: 60
 Quote by turbo Consider this: Air pollution knows no state boundaries. Water pollution knows no state boundaries. If there is any reason for "state's rights" to trump our general rights to clean air and water (as established by the EPA, as weak as it is) I don't see any logical rationale for it. If there is any single federal agency that should have authority to establish across-the-board guidelines for the emissions of pollutants, it is the EPA. If states want to establish tighter guidelines, they will have a tough uphill slog trying to enforce them. This is one area in which federalism must be applied, IMO, because poor states like Maine can't possibly hope to force diffuse-source polluters in other states to clean up their acts.
Very true. Consider that if every state had to set its own environmental controls, some would be below current standard, some would maintain it, some would go beyond it (well maybe not this last one). Yet even if the split was even, the whole environmental quality would degrade faster because pollution isn't zero sum.
 P: 927 The reason the EPA should be a federal agency rather than only a state based agency is that what it regulates crosses state borders (i.e., water and air), and therefore disputes about these issues would overrun SCOTUS.
 PF Patron P: 467 I don't think Ron Paul would abolish the activities of the EPA, only the agency itself. Because such environmental concerns involve interstate commerce, they would fall under the jurisdiction of the Constitution and the responsibility for administering them would fall to the Commerce Department. From Wikipedia comes this list of RP's stance on various environmental issues: Environmental-related legislative activities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ns_of_Ron_Paul Paul is a member of the Congressional Green Scissors Coalition.[233] * In 2005, supported by Friends of the Earth, Paul cosponsored a bill preventing the U.S. from funding nuclear power plants in China.[234] * He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.[13] * Paul is opposed to federal subsidies that favor certain technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane, and believes the market should decide which technologies are best and which will succeed in the end.[13] * He sponsored an amendment to repeal the federal gas tax for consumers.[235] * He believes that nuclear power is a clean and efficient potential alternative that could be used to power electric cars.[13] * He believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow production of hemp, which can be used in producing sustainable biofuels, and has introduced bills into Congress to allow states to decide this issue; North Dakota, particularly, has built an ethanol plant with the ability to process hemp as biofuel and its farmers have been lobbying for the right to grow hemp for years.[27] * He voted against 2004 and 2005 provisions that would shield makers from liability for MTBE, a possibly cancer-causing gasoline additive that seeped into New England groundwater. The proposal included $1.8 billion to fund cleanup and another$2 billion to fund companies' phaseout programs.[236][237][238] The League of Conservation Voters gave Paul a lifetime voting-record score of 30%,[239] while Republicans for Environmental Protection gave him a score of 17.[240] Respectfully submitted, Steve
P: 927
 Quote by Dotini * In 2005, supported by Friends of the Earth, Paul cosponsored a bill preventing the U.S. from funding nuclear power plants in China.[234] * He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.[13] * Paul is opposed to federal subsidies that favor certain technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane, and believes the market should decide which technologies are best and which will succeed in the end.[13] * He sponsored an amendment to repeal the federal gas tax for consumers.[235] * He believes that nuclear power is a clean and efficient potential alternative that could be used to power electric cars.[13] * He believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow production of hemp, which can be used in producing sustainable biofuels, and has introduced bills into Congress to allow states to decide this issue; North Dakota, particularly, has built an ethanol plant with the ability to process hemp as biofuel and its farmers have been lobbying for the right to grow hemp for years.[27] * He voted against 2004 and 2005 provisions that would shield makers from liability for MTBE, a possibly cancer-causing gasoline additive that seeped into New England groundwater. The proposal included $1.8 billion to fund cleanup and another$2 billion to fund companies' phaseout programs.[236][237][238]
Holy Crap! From the titles/descriptions., those are issues which I would similarly vote (based upon no knowledge whatsoever of the particular issue, of course).
Mentor
P: 4,182
 Quote by Dotini * In 2005, supported by Friends of the Earth, Paul cosponsored a bill preventing the U.S. from funding nuclear power plants in China.[234] * He has voted against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry, saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.[13] * Paul is opposed to federal subsidies that favor certain technologies over others, such as ethanol from corn rather than sugarcane, and believes the market should decide which technologies are best and which will succeed in the end.[13] * He sponsored an amendment to repeal the federal gas tax for consumers.[235] * He believes that nuclear power is a clean and efficient potential alternative that could be used to power electric cars.[13] * He believes that states should be able to decide whether to allow production of hemp, which can be used in producing sustainable biofuels, and has introduced bills into Congress to allow states to decide this issue; North Dakota, particularly, has built an ethanol plant with the ability to process hemp as biofuel and its farmers have been lobbying for the right to grow hemp for years.[27] * He voted against 2004 and 2005 provisions that would shield makers from liability for MTBE, a possibly cancer-causing gasoline additive that seeped into New England groundwater. The proposal included $1.8 billion to fund cleanup and another$2 billion to fund companies' phaseout programs.[236][237][238]
All of these positions are consistent with the position "The US government should stop doing things". Nothing suggests that he would maintain current regulatory powers
P: 5,422
 Quote by mheslep I was suggesting the cause and effect were mainly in the other direction, i.e. economic success enables a better environment.
Much of China is a good counter-example to that - unless you don't accept that China is an "economic success", of course. Rainforest destruction is economically "successful" as well - that's why people are doing it.

 The Soviets attempted to prescribe every manner and detail of their economy and ended up destroying much of the environment (literally in the case of the Aral sea).
That was the result of bad regulations, not no regulations. Try somewhere like Norway as a better example (e.g. the oil industry is 100% state controlled with profits taxed at more than 80%, but there's nothing much wrong with the standard of living or the quality of the environment).
Mentor
P: 24,979
Some of his *proposals*

 Spending: Paul proposes cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget during his first year in office, and balancing the budget by his third year. He would do this in part by eliminating five cabinet departments: Depeartment of Energy (DOE); Housing and Urban Development; Commerce; Interior; and Education. (Paul has not offered specifics on what would happen to some of the functions currently performed by the departments he wants to abolish--maintaining our nuclear weapons, administering our intellectual property system, and conducting the Census, for instance.) he's nuts, IMO. And just who is going to takeover these functions?  Taxes: Paul has said in the past that he'd like to abolish personal income tax rates, but his plan doesn't suggest that. It does propose lowering the corporate tax rate to 15 percent, from 35 percent. And it would extend the Bush tax cuts and eliminate the estate tax. Paul's campaign has said elsewhere that he supports eliminating the capital gains tax, which, as we've written, would be a boon for, among others, private-equity managers on Wall Street. Sounds like a boon for Wall Street and big Corporations.  Regulation: He would also get rid of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law intended to increase regulation of Wall Street. And he'd scrap Sarbanes-Oxley, the corporate governance law passed in the wake of the Enron scandal. No more corporate oversight to keep Big corps honest. Brilliant!!  End Foreigh Aid oh, yes let's snub other countries. This will really endear the rest of the World to us, but hey, we're so popular and loved, why not cut ourselves off from the rest of the world? http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/p...142130626.html PF Patron P: 2,950  Quote by Evo ... oh, yes let's snub other countries. This will really endear the rest of the World to us, but hey, we're so popular and loved, why not cut ourselves off from the rest of the world? http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/p...142130626.html Me, I find the idea of borrowing$1.2 trillion/year from other countries and then giving it out as 'aid' to still other* countries as nuts.

*Edit: Or giving back to the same ones. The US even gives even gives a little foreign aid to China.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ign-aid-china/
PF Patron
P: 2,950
 Quote by Evo Some of his *proposals* he's nuts, IMO. And just who is going to takeover these functions? Sounds like a boon for Wall Street and big Corporations.
Romney was right when he said corporations are just people. This is especially true in the context of taxes, because the income people receive via the corporation is inevitably taxed. Zeroing out the corporate income tax does not mean income escapes taxation.

OECD countries, combined corporate income tax rate. US is second only to Japan:

Australia* 30.0
Austria 25.0
Belgium* 34.0
Chile* 20.0
Czech Republic 19.0
Denmark 25.0
Estonia* 21.0
Finland 26.0
France* 34.4
Germany* 30.2
Greece 20.0
Hungary* 19.0
Iceland 20.0
Ireland 12.5
Israel* 24.0
Italy* 27.5
Japan 39.5
Korea 24.2
Luxembourg* 28.8
Mexico 30.0
Netherlands* 25.0
New Zealand* 28.0
Norway 28.0
Poland* 19.0
Portugal* 26.5
Slovak Republic 19.0
Slovenia 20.0
Spain 30.0
Sweden 26.3
Switzerland* 21.2
Turkey 20.0
United Kingdom* 26.0
United States* 39.2
PF Patron
P: 2,950
I watched Bill Buckley's 1988 Firing Line interview with Ron Paul the other night. Arg. Paul was just as rambling as a young man as he is today, 33 years later, so he's aged well. ;-)

The transcript is available here:
http://hoohila.stanford.edu/firingli...programID=1168

On the IRS:
 Paul: ... If we don't keep the right records, can you imagine this tax simplification bill that just came out? If we don't learn those forms and do it right, we have a gun pointed at our head by the IRS and say, "You're going to be put in prison if you don't learn to fill out those forms".... We are guilty until proven innocent-- Buckley: No. Paul: ... then we will go to jail they confiscate money from out banks -- Buckley: You got it a little bit wrong Dr Paul. Here is how it works. If the federal government --if the IRS --contests your tax, the presumption is theirs. Paul: Right. Buckley: But in any prosecution of you for a criminal trespass, the presumption is yours.

On Reagan, Tip O'neil's congress and spending:
 Buckley: ... that's what Reagan wants, a constitutional amendment [to balance the budget]. Paul: ... that's a cop-out, because we have to ask, what were the number of vetoes that Ronald Reagan used in his term? You know, I did support Ronald Reagn in 1976, but, you know, I sincerely believe I owe Gerald Ford and apology. Because Gerald Ford vetoed more bills, percentage wise, than Ronald Reagn ever did. So Ronald Reagn did not really follow through. Buckley: No, Dr Paul listen. You know and I know and everybody knows that you know and I know [laughter] that the techniques of handling presidential obstructionism were devised by Tip O'Neil during the past 15 years to make it easy to get around. What they simply do is amalgamate everything into one big bill. So there is the President of the US. he finds out he either vetoes this bill in which case the zoos close in Washington and the animals die or else he signs it. [laughter] Now, he is also been after the line item veto. When Ford was vetoing every other day of his life, he was getting bills for $50-100-200 million,$300 million. But that's not the kind of bills they have been giving the president of the US in the last congressional generation. They have been giving two-time bills, $500 billion,$400 billion, \$200 billion.
Mentor
P: 24,979
 Quote by mheslep Romney was right when he said corporations are just people. This is especially true in the context of taxes, because the income people receive via the corporation is inevitably taxed. Zeroing out the corporate income tax does not mean income escapes taxation.
But that's the tax rate before all of the deductions, write offs, loop holes, etc... I can't imagine any corporation having no deductions.
 PF Patron P: 726 Okay, I've been following without contributing, but I just want to add a general note: The president does not create legislature nor dictate public policy. He can merely set goals and act as a spokesperson for the country. The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY end foreign aid to other countries is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push by Paul to cut foreign aid where it is least useful or most wasteful. The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY close down the Federal Reserve and return the country to the gold standard is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push to reduce the minting of fiat currency. Further, you'd likely see less reliance on the Federal Reserve to muck-about with the economy (for better or for worse). The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY remove capital gains taxes and dividend taxes is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would see a push to lower those taxes. The benefit of which would be felt by all (I would love to sell off my investments without automatically accumulating a loss). I'm just saying...
Mentor
P: 24,979
 Quote by FlexGunship Okay, I've been following without contributing, but I just want to add a general note: The president does not create legislature nor dictate public policy. He can merely set goals and act as a spokesperson for the country. The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY end foreign aid to other countries is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push by Paul to cut foreign aid where it is least useful or most wasteful. The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY close down the Federal Reserve and return the country to the gold standard is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would have a push to reduce the minting of fiat currency. Further, you'd likely see less reliance on the Federal Reserve to muck-about with the economy (for better or for worse). The idea that "President Paul" could ACTUALLY remove capital gains taxes and dividend taxes is absurd. It wouldn't happen. Instead, you would see a push to lower those taxes. The benefit of which would be felt by all (I would love to sell off my investments without automatically accumulating a loss). I'm just saying...
That's another good point, his entire campaign is based on nonsense and false promises. BUT, he can steal enough votes if he runs as an independant to cause the GOP choice to lose the bid for Presidency.
PF Patron
P: 2,950
 Quote by Evo But that's the tax rate before al of the deductions, write offs, loop holes, etc... I can't imagine any corporation having no deductions.
Yep, about half of large corps pay less than half that rate effectively, while many of the small companies without the same access to tax avoidance pay the full freight. I expect the large companies like it that way, keeps out the little guy competition with their troublesome disruptive ideas. It's been posted already in this thread that Paul intends to do away with many of the loopholes, as does much of the current GOP (not all), and, even if he didn't, the loopholes don't pay as well at a lower marginal rate which levels the playing field.
PF Patron
P: 2,950
 Quote by AlephZero Much of China is a good counter-example to that - unless you don't accept that China is an "economic success", of course. Rainforest destruction is economically "successful" as well - that's why people are doing it.
I doubt it. I certainly point to China as an example of economic success, but without political freedom. I also grant China has bad pollution problems. But I ask, as compared to what? The Chinese are no longer denuding their country side because, as in extremely poor countries, wood is their only fuel and building material and farming/ranching is the only way to make a living. Also, I'd suggest that Chinese pollution is a temporary phase, as once one rises out of subsistence living clean air and water can become a primary concern. If the Chinese get some political freedom I expect they'll do something about that.

 That was the result of bad regulations, not no regulations.
Yes, I suggest the attempt to regulate everything can only lead to bad regulations and cronyism.

 Related Discussions Science & Math Textbooks 12 Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 5 General Discussion 10 Current Events 197 Current Events 1