# Ron Paul's candidacy

by Char. Limit
Tags: candidacy, paul
PF Gold
P: 3,072
 Quote by AlephZero ... 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).
Eh, Statoil is a company 2/3 owned by the government, not run by it, similar I suppose to the current General Motors - US ownership situation. And Statoil is far from the beginning and end of the Norwegian oil industry in the North Sea.

The more relevant point here for me is that a citizenry of only some four million has managed a government that oversees the environment reasonably. I doubt Norwegians would welcome Brussels stomping in, claiming the Norwegian government lacks resources, or small governments will be overrun by big companies, etc, so an ever more thoughtful EU EPA will now watch over things. I suspect my state of ~six million could manage as well.
 P: 2,179 What's the difference between a regulation and a law? Do the good laws against murder and theft only lead to bad laws and cronyism? If they pass a regulation preventing my neighbor from poisoning my well does that put us on the slippery slope to chaos and mayhem? How about a law instead?
PF Gold
P: 3,072
Laws are made only by legislatures. Regulations can be created, with the force of law, by any old GS whatever employed by the executive branch. There have been some moves to change the current situation.

 ...requires congressional approval of a major rule -- one that has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more -- before it can take effect. ... The bill says that if Congress doesn't approve the rule within a certain time period, the rule is deemed not to have been approved and it shall not take effect, http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...jor-regulatio/ P: 60  Quote by mheslep 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). I don't think that's a good example. When the Aral sea's headwaters were diverted for irrigation, was the economic gains in farming equal or greater to the local economic losses of peoples dependent on it for fish, etc.? I'm not trying to argue against your point, for I've not fully thought it through so well that I can agree or disagree fully or just in part. But, I'll agree that currently the worst environmental damage is occurring in poorer countries. P: 926  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... Not to hijack the thread (and you're right, it's COngress), why does Obama get blamed for things like the Health Care Act, etc., when it was Congress that poassed these bills? P: 4,572  Quote by daveb Not to hijack the thread (and you're right, it's COngress), why does Obama get blamed for things like the Health Care Act, etc., when it was Congress that poassed these bills? One thing I have noticed is that with monolithic systems like government, it has become default to pass the buck and blame someone else. Also due to the nature of such monolithic systems, it becomes harder and harder to assign absolute responsibility to any one person or group, and that unfortunately is a nice thing for politics. It's not to say that people are not 'actually' responsible (because they are), but its just the unfortunate nature of the system. P: 926  Quote by mheslep Laws are made only by legislatures. Regulations can be created, with the force of law, by any old GS whatever employed by the executive branch. There have been some moves to change the current situation. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...jor-regulatio/ While true, their authority is derived by Congress who delegates authority to the agency that does the regulating (well, at least in the case of the NRC and DOT). I imagine it's the same with other Departments as well (that they are established and derive their authority by an Act of Congress). PF Gold P: 3,072  Quote by feathermoon I don't think that's a good example. When the Aral sea's headwaters were diverted for irrigation, was the economic gains in farming equal or greater to the local economic losses of peoples dependent on it for fish, etc.? ... I can't see how the two compare; the Aral was the 4th largest lake in the world. PF Gold P: 3,072  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. Neither Congress nor the President can dictate policy, unless ...  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. Unless they are willing to go to the mat and shut the government down. In such a case of course a President Paul could end all foreign aid, or any other positive action of the government by simply vetoing the aggregated appropriation bill until he gets what he wants. I submit there is little question Paul would close the government as long as necessary to get his promised ~$1T cuts. Some years into his term a Congress could beat him up enough politically to override, but any negative action of a recently elected President is politically impossible to overcome. So I'll completely reverse this one assertion and say that if a President Paul is elected it is guaranteed that much government based foreign aid ends.

 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).
I don't know. Of course the President can not unilaterally overturn the Federal Reserve Act. He requires positive action by the Congress, new legislation to do that. He does however have the power to appoint Fed Chairmen, so he could certainly appoint someone that will pursue only tight money policy, open the Fed books to auditing, etc, somebody like Jim Grant. The appointment is subject to Senate approval, but again for a newly elected P. he will get his way for awhile, and even if not, as the current President has demonstrated, he can do rolling recess appointments.

 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).
A newly elected President might push that through the Senate, as there is already substantial agreement. The usual defense of catering to the rich won't stick to a President Paul.
 Emeritus Sci Advisor PF Gold P: 11,155 Paul's now in the lead in Iowa (in 3 out of the last 4 polls): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...mary-1588.html
Mentor
P: 26,413
 Quote by Gokul43201 Paul's now in the lead in Iowa (in 3 out of the last 4 polls): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...mary-1588.html
He's losing to Romney in the latest poll.

 Romney back to leading US Republicans in Iowa: poll (AFP) – 3 hours ago WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney has retaken the lead among Republican White House contenders in Iowa less than two weeks before it holds the first nominating contest, a poll said Thursday. The former Massachusetts governor and on-again, off-again favorite had appeared to slip behind former House speaker Newt Gingrich in recent weeks, but the poll by Rasmussen Reports showed Romney regaining momentum. The poll showed Romney with 25 percent support, followed by small-government champion Ron Paul at 20 percent and Gingrich at 17 percent, with the remainder of the candidates at 10 percent or less.
P: 813
 Quote by mheslep Neither Congress nor the President can dictate policy, unless ... Unless they are willing to go to the mat and shut the government down. In such a case of course a President Paul could end all foreign aid, or any other positive action of the government by simply vetoing the aggregated appropriation bill until he gets what he wants. I submit there is little question Paul would close the government as long as necessary to get his promised ~\$1T cuts. Some years into his term a Congress could beat him up enough politically to override, but any negative action of a recently elected President is politically impossible to overcome. So I'll completely reverse this one assertion and say that if a President Paul is elected it is guaranteed that much government based foreign aid ends.
He'll still need some congressional support. Congress can overturn a veto with 2/3rds suppot.
PF Gold
P: 3,072
 Quote by John Creighto He'll still need some congressional support. Congress can overturn a veto with 2/3rds suppot.
As I said above, that never happens to newly elected presidents.
Mentor
P: 26,413
 Quote by mheslep As I said above, that never happens to newly elected presidents.
It does if they're crazy.
PF Gold
P: 3,072
 Quote by Evo It does if they're crazy.
Well that's why he's not going to be President.
 PF Gold P: 3,072 Given many of Ron Paul's views have a large following, but (IMO) has a nutty factor, I don't understand why Gary Johnson has not caught on instead. Johnson is the former twice elected governor of New Mexico who holds very similar libertarian views, is not nutty, and he has executive experience both in government and business, unlike Paul. http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Johnson/
Mentor
P: 26,413
 Quote by mheslep Given many of Ron Paul's views have a large following, but (IMO) has a nutty factor, I don't understand why Gary Johnson has not caught on instead. Johnson is the former twice elected governor of New Mexico who holds very similar libertarian views, is not nutty, and he has executive experience both in government and business, unlike Paul. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson
They're saying it's not too late for new entries. Why duke it out from the beginning when you can let the first group kill each other off, then come in fresh?

There's got to be a new influx, don't you think?

This first batch most certainly can't be the best the GOP has to offer.
P: 1,414
 Quote by mheslep Given many of Ron Paul's views have a large following, but (IMO) has a nutty factor, I don't understand why Gary Johnson has not caught on instead. Johnson is the former twice elected governor of New Mexico who holds very similar libertarian views, is not nutty, and he has executive experience both in government and business, unlike Paul. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson
Johnson pulled out of the GOP race and will be running as the Libertarian Party candidate.

He was excluded from all but two of the GOP debates, because his poll numbers were low. His poll numbers were low, I would guess, because he didn't get sufficient exposure to allow even the possibility that they might increase significantly. Why is that?

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