News Paul's Detailed Budget Plan is released

[Evo]

Yes he can't win, but focusing only on that misses the elephant in the room: if Paul finishes strong in several primaries he gains bargaining power. For example, if the #1 and #2 candidates are neck and neck at the convention Paul can encourage his delegates to vote for the candidate most in line with his views, which would very likely be the one with the largest and clearly defined budget cuts, or anti-interventionist policy, etc. Plus he'll warrant speaking time at the convention.

Isn't he doing horribly in the actual primaries? We're not talking about the bogus straw polls.

 

[mheslep]

... I just disagree that private charity can take care of needy Americans. It's too big a problem. Governmental intervention is necessary in order to avoid large scale societal problems.

A hundred years ago there were thousands of mutual aid societies and perhaps one third of adult males belonged to one. https://www.amazon.com/dp/080782531X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I don't know either if a modern version of that system could replace government aid. Then I don't see that government aid does a very good job. I know that government based medical assistance (Medicaid, Medicare) in particular can not continue growing at the current rate.

 

[mheslep]

Isn't he doing horribly in the actual primaries? We're not talking about the bogus straw polls.

First primaries (NH, Iowa) are in January '12 (maybe December.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2012#Calendar

Romney and Cain are the first tier. Paul is in the second tier essentially tied w/ Gingrich and Perry.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

 

[ThomasT]

Food welfare is a fantastic idea. Soup kitchens and even food stamps are good. My only complaint about food stamps is that users of food stamps should be compelled to purchase maximally nutritious food at the lowest possible cost. I watched a woman argue with a cashier because her Red Bull couldn't be purchased with food stamps. Clearly someone has missed the point here. If you are a burden on the state, then you should try to minimize your burden... this is a concept completely lost on some people.

Ok, there are the unappreciative miscreants (maybe too strong a term, but I assume you'll get what I mean) wrt food welfare. I'm certainly not disputing that. My point is that if food welfare is significantly cut or abolished, then the general economy (and tens of thousands of workers and business owners) will suffer.

And I don't think it's practical to entertain the idea that food welfare recipients can be "compelled to purchase maximally nutritious food at the lowest possible cost".

Government-funded housing seems to be a mistake in almost every case. I've lived in two cities with "projects," and I can say that in both cases they were the worst parts of their respective cities. Instead of helping to integrate disparate members of the lower economic classes into the society as a whole, it gathers them up and groups them together and they form a sort of dysfunctional counter-culture.

This isn't my experience with government funded housing. Yes, some of it involves "projects" and the problems associated with those. However, much of it is spread throughout various neighborhoods -- which was my experience when I was buying and renting properties/rooms/apartments.

If funding for this stuff is significantly decreased or abolished, then lots of people will be negatively affected. Thousands of jobs will be lost, businesses will close, not to mention that the people who can't afford to rent will simply be out on the street. No church or other charitable organization can afford to deal with such a problem effectively.

Government assistance in guaranteeing loans for homes... well... we've seen how that works out.

Yes, that was abused. Home ownership is simply not an option for a lot of working Americans. But I still think that housing subsidies should remain, because there would be more, and more difficult, problems without them.

 

[ThomasT]

Yes he can't win, but focusing only on that misses the elephant in the room: if Paul finishes strong in several primaries he gains bargaining power. For example, if the #1 and #2 candidates are neck and neck at the convention Paul can encourage his delegates to vote for the candidate most in line with his views, which would very likely be the one with the largest and clearly defined budget cuts, or anti-interventionist policy, etc. Plus he'll warrant speaking time at the convention.

Yes, I think this is a good point. The idea is to get some ideas and certain ways of thinking into the mainstream discussion. I expect that the current Republican front runners will lose ground, while Paul will maintain or even slowly increase his percentage. The thing is that he comes across, to me at least, as sincere. Which is, in itself, a helluva thing when you're talking about politicians. He comes across, to me, as an empathetic and compassionate person who values personal liberty and the rule of law. I happen to disagree with some of his current ideas, but those could change. Hopefully he's not the sort of candidate who's intimidated by charges of 'flipflopping' or changing one's mind. If one is amenable to learning, then one is probably going to change one's mind from time to time.

 

[ThomasT]

A hundred years ago there were thousands of mutual aid societies and perhaps one third of adult males belonged to one. https://www.amazon.com/dp/080782531X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I don't know either if a modern version of that system could replace government aid.

Nor does anybody, I'm assuming. Even though some (including me) would like that to be the case.

Then I don't see that government aid does a very good job.

I think that in some cases it does, and in some cases it doesn't. I don't know enough about the general effects (wrt individuals) to make a general statement in that regard. I do however think that significantly decreasing or abolishing government aid wrt housing and food would have a marked negative effect on the general economy.

I know that government based medical assistance (Medicaid, Medicare) in particular can not continue growing at the current rate.

I, of course, agree. But it's a complicated consideration involving insurance companies, big pharma, hospital administration, production and distribution of medical equipment, etc. As well as governmental subsidies.

I don't know that anybody has as yet condensed the problem to its salient features.

 

[Galteeth]

Paul is actually positioned to do well in nevada and iowa. They are both caucus states, which favor paul's dedicated base, and he has a strong constituency in Nevada (not to mention that many are "boycotting" that contest.)

Paul could finish 2nd in Iowa, and possibly win Nevada.

 

[Evo]

Paul is actually positioned to do well in nevada and iowa. They are both caucus states, which favor paul's dedicated base, and he has a strong constituency in Nevada (not to mention that many are "boycotting" that contest.)

Paul could finish 2nd in Iowa, and possibly win Nevada.

Nah, I have faith that common sense will prevail, although there isn't much to choose from. Although Paul would guarantee a win for Obama, IMO. Can't the Republicans come up with better candidates? Someone that is at least middle of the road and not a creationist/evangelist/Intelligent Design anti-science candidate?

 

[WhoWee]

Nah, I have faith that common sense will prevail, although there isn't much to choose from. Although Paul would guarantee a win for Obama, IMO. Can't the Republicans come up with better candidates? Someone that is at least middle of the road and not a creationist/evangelist/Intelligent Design anti-science candidate?

Why doesn't Romney satisfy the description?

 

[Evo]

Why doesn't Romney satisfy the description?

Romney isn't too bad, forgot about him. I'd have to say he's the only viable Republican contender. IMO

What are his views on science, btw, since this is a science forum?

 

[WhoWee]

Romney isn't too bad, forgot about him. I'd have to say he's the only viable Republican contender. IMO

What are his views on science, btw, since this is a science forum?

http://www.issues2000.org/2012/Mitt_Romney_Technology.htm

"National R&D spending OK; picking winners not OK

Government funding for basic science and research in universities and research laboratories has been declining for years. It needs to grow instead, particularly in engineering and the physical sciences. Research in energy, materials science, nanotechnology, and transportation are vital to the economy and to our nation's competitiveness. Government should not, however, attempt to pick winning ideas or technologies in which it would invest funds for development and commercialization.
The realities of that marketplace sort out those that have potential for growth and sustainability and those that do not. Attempting to substitute government for the roles carried out by entrepreneurs, angel investors, and venture capitalists while also bypassing the unforgiving test of the free market is a very bad idea indeed.
Source: No Apology, by Mitt Romney, p.124-125 , Mar 2, 2010"

 

[Galteeth]

Nah, I have faith that common sense will prevail, although there isn't much to choose from. Although Paul would guarantee a win for Obama, IMO. Can't the Republicans come up with better candidates? Someone that is at least middle of the road and not a creationist/evangelist/Intelligent Design anti-science candidate?

I wouldn't characterize Paul as an anti-science candidate. Yes, he probably would cut funding for science, as per shrinking the government in general. Although his views are on evolution are muddy (one of the few things he is not clear on), he has made it clear he is not running as an ID/creationist candidate. He would not support carbon cap emissions type legislation but has made it clear that the government should do a better job on pollution enforcement through property rights.

(and yes I have links if you want them)

 

[WhoWee]

I wouldn't characterize Paul as an anti-science candidate. Yes, he probably would cut funding for science, as per shrinking the government in general. Although his views are on evolution are muddy (one of the few things he is not clear on), he has made it clear he is not running as an ID/creationist candidate. He would not support carbon cap emissions type legislation but has made it clear that the government should do a better job on pollution enforcement through property rights.

(and yes I have links if you want them)

In his defense - he is a doctor.

 

[Evo]

I wouldn't characterize Paul as an anti-science candidate. Yes, he probably would cut funding for science, as per shrinking the government in general. Although his views are on evolution are muddy (one of the few things he is not clear on), he has made it clear he is not running as an ID/creationist candidate. He would not support carbon cap emissions type legislation but has made it clear that the government should do a better job on pollution enforcement through property rights.

(and yes I have links if you want them)

Paul doesn't believe in evolution and he thinks GW is a hoax, and I do have the videos of him saying so. You didn't know? He actually said free trade will cure GW.

 

[Galteeth]

Romney isn't too bad, forgot about him. I'd have to say he's the only viable Republican contender. IMO

What are his views on science, btw, since this is a science forum?

Romney is probably the front runner now, although his general "neo-conness" makes him not an enthusiastic pic for the GOP base.

Romney wants to increase military spending and increase the military by 100,00 people.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-08/romney-pledges-to-increase-u-s-military-spending-deter-iran.html

While this may appeal to defense contractors and such, I don't think it will play well in the general.

 

[Galteeth]

Paul doesn't believe in evolution and he thinks GW is a hoax, and I do have the videos of him saying so.

Yes, he did say that (global warming), although he's moderated his view a bit (and he does through out a few anti-global warming talking points)
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1242409415001/special-report-online-ron-paul/
(around 6:30 he discusses GW)

As far as the evolution thing, that's a bit more complicated.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/i...ron-paul-doesnt-accept-evolution-as-a-theory/


The unedited version of the video you are probably referring to in regards to evolution:



makes it clear Paul has NO interest in pushing any kind of creationist/ID platform.

 

[Evo]

Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

Ron Paul GW is a hoax Ron Paul on Fox Business: Global Warming is a Hoax - 11/04/2009

Start around 7:00 Paul says gw is a hoax around 7:10 then Paul says it's weather control, the tv reporter laughs nervously and changes the subject.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCc5Gk1nops

 

[DoggerDan]

makes it clear Paul has NO interest in pushing any kind of creationist/ID platform.

That's good to hear. Whether or not a President believes in evolution, however, his no bearing on his qualifications for the office of the Presidency. Most U.S. Presidents, after all, have not believed in Evolution. This includes several within the last 50 years.

 

[Galteeth]

Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

Ron Paul GW is a hoax Ron Paul on Fox Business: Global Warming is a Hoax - 11/04/2009

Start around 7:00 Paul says gw is a hoax around 7:10 then Paul says it's weather control, the tv reporter laughs nervously and changes the subject.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCc5Gk1nops

The top video is an edited version of the same video I linked to regarding evolution. The unedited version makes it clear that Paul has no interest in evolution as a political issue.