Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Username: Password:

Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Ron Paul  (Read 6999 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Drift Woody

  • Day Hiker
  • **
  • Karma: 2
  • Posts: 66
  • keep walking!
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #30 on: November 27, 2011, 03:28:14 PM »

roadkill,

I agree with you on the influence of the banks and the MIC. However, that is not an example of Keynesian economics. That is an example of special interest money (from the private sector) exerting influence over our government. The problem is that our representative democracy has been corrupted and subverted by the campaign cash politicians depend on to get elected.

Ron Paul wants to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency. I believe that would be an ecological and health disaster. If his contention is that the EPA is unconstitutional, then either he is wrong or the Constitution is deeply flawed. I think Ron Paul is wrong. The Founders understood the Constitution and the concept of self-government is not static, which is why they established the means for Amendment.
Logged
We are all brothers ... unless, of course, you're my sister.

roadkill

  • Day Hiker
  • **
  • Karma: 0
  • Posts: 68
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #31 on: December 04, 2011, 06:24:34 AM »

Driftwoody,
     I didn't say that it was an example. I said people who follow it are perhaps misguided.  And as for the EPA, actually it is unconstitutional and the Constitution is NOT deeply flawed. The EPA was started by Executive Order, not by an act of Congress. It acts like a cabinet agency, it has a huge budget, and no real mission statement. So he's right in that regard. Personally, I believe we need an EPA. If Congress had authorized it, or the Constitution had been amended, RP wouldn't have a beef with it.
     From your posts on here, would I be wrong to say the EPA takes precedent over everything else? If so, you've got to be kidding me. Do you still believe we aren't turning into a police state after the events in New York and Norfolk, VA concerning TSA agents, and the proposed legislation by John McCain and Carl Levin a week or so ago? Do you really think we can fiscally continue much further without having to sell off assets like Greece is having to do? Do you still have faith in our currency and do you believe the government when they say there is no inflation? Do you still feel we live in a free society? We can debate these things in a free society and  petition our government to do things if we don't like a certain situation. But like I've said before, hey, as long as we can go to the Gorge, none of that matters, right?
Logged

Drift Woody

  • Day Hiker
  • **
  • Karma: 2
  • Posts: 66
  • keep walking!
Re: Ron Paul
« Reply #32 on: December 05, 2011, 10:53:28 PM »

Roadkill,

You're blending together several different issues, which does more to confuse than resolve the issues and can lead to false assumptions. In your previous post you wrote "Perhaps people who follow Keynesian economics (like our leaders in washington) and an interventionist foreign policy (like our leaders in Washington) are terribly misguided (wait, they aren't. They are being guided by the banks and military industrial complex)." It was reasonable for me to assume you were tying Keynesian economics together with the influence of banks and the MIC, given the way you tied them together in the same sentence. However, the fact is that politicians who subscribe to supply-side (aka trickle-down) economics are just as (if not more) likely to be influenced by Wall Street and war profiteers. The merits of different economic theories is an entirely different issue, but you saw fit to throw it in there because you apparently disagree with Keynes.

Whether or not the reorganization of smaller arms of different agencies into the EPA by executive order in 1970 was unconstitutional is a matter for Constitutional scholars (I'm not one; are you?) and for the Supreme Court. Given the moneyed interests opposing the EPA, I suspect it would have been successfully challenged in the Court if clearly unconstitutional. The fact is the EPA has been funded by Congress for 40+ years, which gives it the imprimatur of our Legislative branch. I was under the impression that Ron Paul was asserting the existence of the EPA was unconstitutional -- not merely the manner of its creation. My comment about the Constitution being "deeply flawed" was predicated on the assertion that the existence of the EPA was unconstitutional. I was disagreeing with that assertion and with Ron Paul if he was making it. Of course the EPA does not take "precedent over everything else." Your question was based on the assumption I knew the objection to the EPA was its manner of creation, but that issue had not been previously raised here. Does Ron Paul really have no objection to an agency serving the function of the EPA, and would he like to see it abolished and then re-created in a more "constitutional" manner? I have my doubts.

Regarding the US becoming a "police state" you first brought that up on Nov 15 in page 2 of this thread when you wrote "Anybody on here ever heard of or read the US Constitution? Anyone know anything about economics or history and how nations have bankrupted themselves with their fiscal policy? Is it the opinion of some people on here that it is okay to live in a police state as long as they can go to the Red River Gorge?" You made no mention of the apparatus of the national security state, so it was reasonable to assume you were implying fiscal policy and debt were leading us towards a police state. One could speculate that economic collapse might produce that result but such a conclusion is not obvious, which is why I asked you "on what basis do you think we're heading towards a police state?" Subsequently, we found ourselves basically in agreement regarding Homeland Security and the MIC.

Your barrage of questions at the end of your last post is full of false assumptions and apparent misunderstandings of the positions I've taken in this thread, which is why I'm trying to be as clear as possible here. Will you make the same effort? Your last question seems to imply that we can either have a free society or we can continue to have federally protected & adminsitered public lands like Red River Gorge. I don't think that's exactly what you were trying to say, but your point is far from clear when you tie different issues together like that. Sure, it's all realted, but we are not faced with such a stark choice. And we are not Italy or Greece, not by a long shot. And yes, we are still a free society even though we must remain ever vigilant against unacceptable infringements that have crept up like McCarthyism 60 years ago and the recently proposed legislation the president has threatened to veto.

What's really needed is rational discourse on the wisest course of actions to reduce spending, raise revenue, protect the environment, foster economic recovery, and keep our nation safe from threats both foreign and domestic. There are honest disagreements about potential solutions, which is why the rational discourse is needed. Unfortunately we see very little of that on the national stage, and all too often average citizens like us can't get past the ideological lines that have been drawn. The first Republican president once said A house divided against itself cannot stand. He was talking about the institution of slavery, but I think it's a lesson that still applies. I suspect the polarization of the American people between right and left is intended and fostered by those who own the politicians and the media so they can better accumulate wealth and power while the rest of us are at each others' throats. Just some food for thought.

-DW
« Last Edit: December 05, 2011, 11:08:52 PM by Drift Woody »
Logged
We are all brothers ... unless, of course, you're my sister.
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
 

Privacy Policy