My Man Ron!
Fellow contributor Sam Rocha, in My Man Newt?, recently identified his appreciation for the humane chord that Newt Gingrich had struck on the matter of immigrant families who had set roots in the United States. Gingrich, in the view of Mr. Rocha, is someone who could actually work on this question in a concrete way, and therefore is worthy of support over those whose rhetoric has not yet resulted in concrete progress.
Mr. Rocha was surprised to find himself moving in the direction of Gingrich (and therefore included a question mark after his title “My Man Newt”). A point of exclamation, rather than of question, follows my own endorsement, which I recognize can be subject to criticism from persons on both ends of the political spectrum.
I would like to approach my man Ron, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, from the perspective on non-aggression.
Abortion is a form of aggression. Some wonder how Paul reconciles his being, as he puts it, an “unshakable foe of abortion,” with his libertarian ideology. Paul sometimes speaks of the relationship between values of privacy and life by noting how he doesn’t want the government in any person’s home: “No searches without warrants. No cameras. But you can’t kill your baby in your home.” Libertarians should be against abortion because “a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection,” and abortion acts against the liberty owed to a fetus. The torture of detainees being interrogated is another form of aggression. Paul views torture as immoral and impractical (and rightly recognizes waterboarding as an act of torture). Paul does not support the federal use of the death penalty under any circumstance. The punishment is “issued unjustly” particularly to those poor.
Another form of aggression comes in the way of unjust discrimination towards gay and lesbian persons. Paul supports the rights of gay and lesbian persons to marriage: “I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want.” The federal government should not interfere, or impose itself upon the free association of two persons, and that interference includes federal attempts to define marriage.
Paul also voted for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the official United States policy which, although prohibiting military personnel from discriminating against homosexual service members or applicants, nonetheless also prohibited homosexual persons from disclosing that which might indicate his or her own sexual orientation. Paul explained voting for the repeal in the following way: “If there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with [and] if there’s heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with.” The issue, as he says, was not the issue of homosexuality, but so long as legislation like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell assumed it was, we had evidence of unjust discrimination, worthy of being opposed by those more libertarian on account of unnecessary aggression against gay and lesbian persons.
Finally, the Congressman is against wars of aggression. Paul was one of only six Republican members of Congress to vote against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002, and he believes that the circumstances surrounding the current American relationship with the Iranian state mirror those circumstances which existed prior to the beginning of the war in Iraq. In terms of other wars of aggression, Paul recognizes that the federal prohibition of drugs is ineffective and he advocates ending the War on Drugs not because drugs aren’t dangerous but because it is not the job of the federal government to regulate this sort of danger. Persons must take responsibility for themselves.
I am not one of those who believe that I have to endorse everything a candidate does in order to vote for him or her. The character of a person, to me, is more important than the specific views he or she holds. I believe Ron Paul is a person of great decency and courage, and were I an American voter, I would unhesitatingly cast my ballot for him. I am also of the opinion that American voters, in choosing their next President, will find Congressman Paul on the ballot.
K.
Kelly Wilson is a Seminarian for the Archdiocese of Winnipeg. Besides Vox Nova he writes at his blog Musings.
Comments are closed.
This is not an argument for gay marriage, but for ending legal marriage completely.
Kelly, out of curiosity, do you consider yourself a libertarian? I was leaning toward what seems to be the mainstream position at Vox Nova, that thoroughgoing libertarianism is not Catholic.
Yes, I think ideally Ron Paul would have the government out of the business of marriage completely. But until they are, Paul has no interest is using the government to restrict definitions and the like.
As for “libertarianism” not being Catholic, that’s fair enough. It’s not Catholic. It’s libertarian. But if you want to tell me that it’s irreconcilable with Catholic teaching, then I would have trouble considering that claim credible.
If the government is in the “business” of marriage at all, it’s ridiculous to say it isn’t the government’s job to define marriage. Gay marriage wouldn’t be free from definition. For example, marriage would still be for only two people. Where would this restriction come from and why would we still respect it?
Hint: there is no coherent answer to that. The only consistent way to view marriage from a secular viewpoint, if there is marriage at all, is as a sociological institution that exists to benefit society by raising families. There are two logical options: traditional marriage or nothing. Anything in between is sheer fuzzy-mindedness, and that would be true even if every single person on earth was an atheist.
That doesn’t make sense, Pachy.
One *can* say that while the government right now is in the “business” of marriage, it shouldn’t be. Therefore, even if ideally, the government would remove itself completely, it hasn’t yet and therefore one can settle for a cessation of further meddling (like federal amendments).
In a statement that may make my fellow contributors (and, for that matter, my usual opponents) shake their heads in disbelief, let me say that if Ron Paul were the Republican nominee, I would vote for him.
Not because of his libertarian conception of the role of government in economic life (I’m more or less a New Dealer, remember), but because I think that of all the candidates of the last 40 years, he stands the best chance of ending the permissive availability of abortion.
I think Ron Paul is a fraud on many levels, and I think he would be one of the worst candidates for people to vote for. He looks good, on a certain level, but the Satanic selfish core of his ideology would destroy the livelihood of the poor.
And yet…he wants to end the Fed and, with it, the usurious system that concentrates more and more wealth in the hands of the private debt-money bankers (and, thus, the capitalists.)
The rest of his economic views must be seen only in this light. If we think “inside the box” then some of his anti-welfare principles may seem entirely heartless, a surrender to dog-eat-dog unregulated exploitation. But in light of his monetary views, that wouldn’t necessarily be the result of a free market.
That’s not to say I’m behind either 100%. I think tying the money supply to a single commodity (like gold) is silly; as a Crediteer, I believe money supply should be increased proportionally to production each year as a whole (and this new credit should be distributed equally and debt-free).
However, I still think you are thinking “inside the box” in desiring government re-distribution of wealth. If wealth has to be RE-distributed by the coercive power of the State…it implies there is something wrong with the distribution system (which is equivalent to saying the monetary system) generally. Wealth shouldn’t have to be RE-distributed, it should be distributed correctly in the FIRST place.
I’m with Henry. Ron Paul is the guy who would let a man without insurance die on sidewalk outside the ER. And if what he were dying of was starvation, Ron Paul would shrug and say “It’s his own fault.” Ron Paul is from the school of “I’ve got mine; too bad about you.” In short, regardless of how he self-designates, he’s an atheist.
My impression would be, Rodak, that your presentation (Henry’s as well) well cross the border into caricature. In politics, that’s no claim to fame, but I don’t see it as furthering the discussion. Paul has specifically addressed your issue of the person without insurance before, and the result isn’t the man dying on the side-walk.
The result actually is — his own campaign manager died!
http://gawker.com/5840024/ron-pauls-campaign-manager-died-of-pneumonia-penniless-and-uninsured
This is exactly the end product of the Ron Paul ideology. Use others while you make it rich. Ayn Rand selfishness.
Nevertheless, when the issue of the man dying on the sidewalk was raised, in the televised debate, and somebody in the crowd shouted “Yes!” while others cheered, Ron Paul, who had the microphone, said nothing to counter that reaction. That he has walked it back subsequent to it having become a major negative on his public image and hinderance to his campaign, is merely politics-as-usual. The time to right a wrong is immediately: not after it jumps up and bites you on the backside.
I would like him to have responded to those people. The fact is that politicians tend not to. The only occasion I’ve noticed a politician chastise a crowd was in 2008 when McCain corrected people who were spouting nonsense about Obama. However, that was in the context of a town-hall meeting and the format was more conversational. But, yes, I would like to think that if Paul associated the cheering with the possibility that someone uninsured would die, he would have corrected them.
Yes!” while others cheered, Ron Paul, who had the microphone, said nothing to counter that reaction.
I dunno. In the video, it looks to me that Paul says “No” and is in the middle of answering the question when one loon shouts “yes” — which interrupts Paul for a second — and then Paul continues answering that he never turned anyone away and that it’s important to have people and institutions helping those in need. And then the crowd applauds that answer. I can’t fault Paul for how he handled the situation — what else was he supposed to do?
It’s Social Darwinism.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/republicans-social-darwinism_b_1124379.html Just in case you didnt happen to see this before. Ron Paul is a perfect fit into what this describes. Yet, when you think about it, I don’t see any Republican candidate that doesnt fit the Social Darwinism mold.
You should defend your claim, Cindy. At some point these conversations need to go beyond identifying a label, and then assuming that everyone agrees with your associating the candidate with that label.
I can’t see Ron Paul as a part of the solution to the problems in America, because I see him as the problem. First of, he is so selfish, and libertarian that he has problems when it comes to civil rights. He (Ron Paul) has sponsored leglislation that would appeal affirmative action. This is a man who point blank said he would abolish the minimum wage. Is that the country that you want to live in? Is that the world that you feel is fair? Is this the type of working society you want for our world? This isn’t the 1950′s anymore. We have progressed well beyond that. Ron Paul is absolutely regressive in his policies. Even though I agree with him on his stance on the wasr, do I have access to classified information? I cant say for sure whether or not simply because I agree with it, whether or not it would really be in our nations best interest. The sad reality is, that we survive because our voilence is greater than the voilence of other’s. It’s a sad sad reality.
Back to the working class. My brother was killed in an accident on the job. Again, Ron Paul would like to repeal OSHA standards. Instead of protecting people while at their jobs, he would prefer you do away with those protections for the worker.
He supports mining on federal lands. I don’t know how one can use the term conservative and yet have no desire to conserve anything. Again, he is regressive, and I do feel he is an honest man. I do appreciate sometimes the way he does have the ability to stop and make me think. There is always some respect given to someone when they come across as honest. It’s his policies that I personally deplore. I hope that helps you understand it more and I hope that helped to defend my point.
“I am supportive of all voluntary associations”
Except labor unions, from what I know of Ron Paul’s voting record.
I’m not sure it’s that simple Kurt. I’m sure he supports their voluntary associating. However, where you might find disagreement is who he feels has jurisdiction to mediate the dispute, or who should or shouldn’t take sides through legislation.
Except he doesn’t. He has never supported “the Kirkland offer” — that we just strip away all labor law and let labor and management go at it bare knuckles — no state enforced prohibition of the closed shop, the secondary boycott, or worker controlled multiemployer funds, and no laws demanding duty of fair representation for non-members, cooling off periods or common interest bargaining units or the myriad of other regulations of worker organization.
Kelly,
what do you think about Ron Paul’s racist views? Not just his comments on the Civil Rights Act which can, I guess be grounded in his libertarianism, but in the more blatantly racist things he published in the 1990′s:
TNR blog
As for his libertarianism not being in accordance with Catholicism: the Church has long taught that government has a positive role in society and envisions it in much broader terms than most libertarians are willing to concede. The Civil Rights Act is a case in point: in CST the federal government had a positive obligation to intervene (over-riding subsidiarity) to right a manifest wrong being perpetuated by Jim Crow laws and customs.
David, my opinion of his supposedly racist views will be voiced when he raises such views. I have never heard the Congressman make a racist claim, or a homophobic claim, or a sexist claim. He’s said plenty enough about all sorts of topics over the years. I’m sure you could find something he’s actually said with which you can disagree.
As for the relationship between Catholicism and libertarian political philosophy, while the government may indeed have a positive role to play in society, there’s the question of who best can accomplish such good, and such a determination will depend in large part on the competence a person attaches to the various levels of government in their ability to accomplish such good.
Kelly writes, “As for the relationship between Catholicism and libertarian political philosophy, while the government may indeed have a positive role to play in society, there’s the question of who best can accomplish such good, and such a determination will depend in large part on the competence a person attaches to the various levels of government in their ability to accomplish such good.”
Well said!
Henry, I don’t think Ron Paul is a Fraud. Tell me, how is he a fraud? Its kind of an amazing position you throw out with no facts to back it up. ….
Seems to me if you take the time to read , Ron Paul is very consistent and well documented in his positions and it seems he would put an end to much unsustainable government spending. Spending is the problem our politicians will not address and Dr. “No” is the best candidate for our time when it comes to spending. Ron Paul does not flip flop over the years on spending. You see, spending, simply, can not exceed revenues with out dire results.
You can’t spend what you do not have. If you print money into existence to pay for all these pet projects , then it is theft from future generations. Printing money causes inflation. They money in your pocket is worth less and buys fewer goods. The Goverment is cheating you out of your wages when they print money willy nilly as they are. Inflation is a hidden back end tax. A subsidy, or a subsidy by any other name( Tarp), is like crack cocaine and no good can come of it. Ending “All” subsidies for “all special interest on the gov’t teat has to end. It can not go on like it is with out dire results.
******The math does not lie******* Spending simply can not exceed revenues.
Ron Paul gets this fact where all other candidates don’t.
This morning I was reading another complaint about Ron Paul ending the Fed and Ron Paul not addressing the issue maintaining the rule of law and prosecutions needed to keep it in balance. Would Ron Paul appoint a competent and proactive attorney General who would aggressively prosecute the Fed when needed? Does Ron Paul have enough good people around him who could do the job?
I’m finding these discussions about Paul and Gingrich fascinating. I think Kelly and Sam are right to note the interesting and positive positions on certain topics that Paul and Gingrich have, and I think it’s right for the commenters to point out Paul’s and Gingrich’s flaws and past faults. Unfortunately, I see no candidate who is free from flaws and past faults. And President Obama has plenty as well (I think I fault Pres. Obama the most for his vocal opposition to the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act back in the Illinois Senate — I found his words to be quite abhorrent and indefensible). So it comes down to the perennial question: who is the best candidate despite his/her grave flaws and faults?
It’s sad, really. Ron Paul is so right on US foreign and military policy, crony capitalism, and abortion that it’s hard not to like him, especially considering the line-up of militarists, corporate yes-men, and pro-life pretenders he’s up against (including Barack Obama). Unfortunately, he’s also so wrong on some other things – chief among them aid to the poor and health care reform – that it’s equally difficult to imagine supporting him. And, yes, Paul has yet to offer a credible response for the years of racist material that found its way into the newsletters published under his name.
Mark, do you think that Ron Paul’s economical approach would contribute to a widening gap between the rich and the poor? That’s what’s already happening, right? Is it possible that his approach might actually reduce the gap?
Also, what would constitute a credible response to the racist material? I provided a link, and in that link Paul condemns those views. I believe him.
Kelly,
A credible response would be to tell us how that kind of material found its way into the editorial content of a newsletter with his name on it, and why it continued to be published under his name year after year. If you published something called the Kelly Wilson Report that repeatedly contained material advocating, say, abortion on demand, would simply disavowing that material after the fact be a sufficient answer to the question of how it got there? Would “I don’t know” be credible?
Not by itself, Mark, no. But it wouldn’t make me, for example, automatically a supporter of abortion on demand. See, that leap in logic, manifested by some in this conversation, emerges when Ron Paul is called a racist.
Kelly, you’ll note that I did not call Ron Paul a racist. In fact, I’m fully prepared to believe that Ron Paul doesn’t have a racist bone in his body. I’ll even go further and say that I don’t believe Ron Paul is a racist. But “not a racist” isn’t good enough to be President of the United States. If he wants to govern a nation of 300 million people, including the roughly 150 million who are non-white, truthfulness on this topic is essential. In short and again, he needs to give a better answer than “I don’t know” to the question, “Why did the Ron Paul Report contain racist material over an extended period of time?”
Right, Mark, I know you didn’t call him one.
Just so we are clear, the evil blog VN has tentatively endorsed two Republicans already.
I hate confessing to having been a member of the camp I’m criticizing, but why the hell does taking your faith seriously mean supporting incompetent or delusional people? While not an ideologue, Mitt Romney is by far more capable of implementing whatever agenda he wants than Ron Paul. Ron Paul may have pretty views, but he still has to work within a system, a system he for the most part disdains. In his time in the House, he hasn’t managed any major, successful piece of legislation, and his House career has been a long one. Politics isn’t about electing who is most agreeable to your ideology. It is about electing people who can effectuate your agenda. Typically those aren’t conflicting goals, but at the same time the two shouldn’t be confused.
I think I finally figured out what bothers me the most about the USCCB voting guide: it reads like it was written by a Miss America pageant contestant. The “issue” of abortion is placed front and center when it has no more relevancy in the election than whether the candidate prays before breakfast. You will look in vain for technocratic ability being a primary consideration. It barely even makes it as a secondary one. It manages to replace concern trolling with prudential work.
So let’s move this beyond Miss American rhetoric. From your understanding of how government will work, the first 4 years of a Paul presidency will see:
1. Abortion will be:
2. Torture of enemy combatant will:
3. The federal reserve will:
4. Tax policy will be:
5. The US will have troops in the following countries:
M.Z., I am not really sure who it is you are addressing, but in terms of my post, I address the Congressman from the perspective of non-aggression, and offer examples of how that non-aggression plays out in specific issues (abortion, torture, gay & lesbian considerations…). I’m not sure what that has to do with “my faith” taking seriously “incompetent or delusional people,” but again, since I do not know really to whom your comments were addressed, it might be a non issue.
What would a President Paul do? It seems to me we can take him seriously when he says that he would stand in the way of legislative attempts to unnecessarily impose upon others. There’s a good deal he has disagreed with as a Congressman which, as President, he could use some of his muscle to prevent. Congressman Paul, as President, would let individual states do (what he feels is) their job to do.
The problem with letting the states do what they feel it’s their job to do, is that states can then legislatively harass members of unpopular minorities. The result of that–besides oppressive discrimination–will be ultimately challenging the constitutionality of such laws in federal court. So the end result is either continued discrimination against the powerless, or the imposition of the will of the federal government on that states, anyway. This, of course, was the whole issue with “states rights” and civil rights legislation back in the sixties, and before. A President Paul would be indicative only of a regression back to the bad old days. Leave gay rights up to the states? Leave health care funding up to states that are broke already? It would be ugly.
What are you saying, Rodak: That particular states would recriminalize homosexual behaviour?
Staying on the topic of the rights of gay and lesbian persons, one advantage to a better understanding of the relationship between the federal entity and individual states, would be the cessation of all this talk about federal amendments to the Constitution seeking to define “marriage” in a hetero-sexual way.
It seems to me we can take him seriously when he says that he would stand in the way of legislative attempts to unnecessarily impose upon others. There’s a good deal he has disagreed with as a Congressman which, as President, he could use some of his muscle to prevent.
We can’t take him seriously about claims he does not have the power to effect. In neither the House nor the Senate are the Republicans going to advance a Paul agenda, even if they have majorities, which is not a sure thing.
Think in terms of his potentially “negative” effect. While Congress and Senate further legislation, a President does have the power to prevent or stand in the way of such legislation through his veto power. If Paul were to be elected President, one would have to assume in him a certain level of popularity. While Congress or Senate certainly *could* over-ride one of his vetoes, there’s no reason to *assume* they would or, at this point, could.
The first 4 years of a Paul presidency will see:
….
2. Torture of enemy combatant will:
….
5. The US will have troops in the following countries:
On these issues, I suspect that a Paul presidency would be more pacifist than the current Obama administration with its support of drone attacks, assassinations of Americans on foreign soil, and getting involved in regime change in other countries (eg, Libya).
I believe Paul represents a very wicked form of individualism. Plus, he doesn’t really understand economics but yet speaks zealously on the subject – a very dangerous combination! If you actually put his beliefs into practice, the result would be economic and social disaster.
MM, I know you are very knowledgeable about economic issues, so I respect your judgment on this one. Can you clarify for me the following: You feel that he really, truly, doesn’t understand economics, and not just that he happens to have a different perspective which you believe is mistaken?
With all due respect to MM, I’m not sure many economists understand economics.
Lower wages — while raising CEO pay and bonuses and lowering their taxes– so that middle class gets into debt in order to survive and to fuel the economy … in the end the 1% owns all the debt and the wealth. That is Republican economics. At least that seems to be what they all preach.
Yes, Kelly, he swears fealty to a bizarre fringe movement called Austian economics (you might not kniow it in American right-wing circles, but Austrianism is a bizarre fringe movement). For a start, his views on monetary policy and the gold standard a recipe for severe deflation – the last thing we need right. And his views on safety nets would increase poverty, inequality, and general human misery.
Liebertarians always trot out this non aggression principle as the brilliant strategy the pro-life movement has always needed but never had. The argument however really is not the Godsend the Paulites would have you believe, since like most of the conventional pro-life positions it still hings on how you define a “baby.” In fact most of Paul’s intellectual masters like Rothbard considered the child as an appendage which could be removed my mother, This is in fact consistent with Rothebard’s and libertarianism as a whole’s notion of radical individual autonomy, one can find similar language and reasoning in Roe v. Wade. Needless to say Paul’s entire view of society is incompatible with Church teaching. We are not just a collection of individuals pursuing our economic interests. The irony of course is that such thinking in fact leads to the growth of the state power, since the state is the only institution that can keep individuals from violating the rights of others.
While Paul may be right in some sense on foreign policy, am I the only one notices whenever Paul talks about our policy he always mentions first that we should be trading with people? If seems as though Paul does not see our wars as primarily morally unjust but rather because our disrupt trade.
Also I see nothing in Paul’s platform that would preclude corporations from growing into an immense “too big to fail” size and then using their money and power to influence government, after all this is consistent with the economic system that Paul’s ascribes to which claims that only way to alliterative the suffering of the poor is for the Church to get out of the way and let big business work its magic.
Finally, I have to say I find Paul’s supporters slightly cultist in nature, American does not need another political cult be it Paul, Obama or the worst- the “Founding Fathers.”
Ryan, who is trotting out the non-aggression principle, and presenting it as the brilliant strategy that the pro-life movement has always needed but never had?
“What are you saying, Rodak: That particular states would recriminalize homosexual behaviour?”
Not necessarily criminalize the behavior itself (although I wouldn’t discount the possibility), but certainly allow discrimination in jobs, housing, public accommodations, etc. And I shudder to think what would happen to gay kids in the public schools; that is bad enough already. The sad truth is that the federal government got such wide-ranging powers in this country because the individual states were not protecting the rights of their various minorities. I don’t think the hearts and minds of the individuals in such states have changed all that much in my lifetime. And even if they have, they can always change back, if they come to believe that they can again get away with it.
So you are worried about leaving issues up to the states because you’re afraid that the states are going to use this power to violate rights, and instead you want the federal government to have all the power over these issues….. but what makes you think that the federal government will always see the world the way you see it and not use all the power you’ve just given it to violate rights? Personally, I find it easier to get a policy changed at state level, instead of a federal level.
Thales–
I don’t know how old you are, but I can see that you know very little about the history of states’ rights politics in this country, particularly with regard to the politics of minority rights. Until you have more background in American history, there is little to be gained by making arguments to you based on historical precedent.
Rodak,
I’ve got background in American history, and based on that background, I’m just amused that you’re concerned about the states using power in an inappropriate way, and apparently have no concern about the federal government using power in an inappropriate way.
Mr. Wilson,
You requested an example of Congressman Paul’s racism, here is one. The page below discusses his past and provides an example in one of his infamous newsletters. While not facially racist, as a Southerner, I can tell you it smacks of the dog-whistle politics used by the GOP since at least the 1970s. I suggest you more fully vet your candidates in the future:
http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/ron-paul-political-report-special-issue.html
Charles, read my comment more carefully:
“My opinion of his supposedly racist views will be voiced when he raises such views. I have never heard the Congressman make a racist claim, or a homophobic claim, or a sexist claim.”
We have already brought up the newsletters. My comment was a response to the claim of the newsletters.
Mr. Wilson,
If you read the newsletters, there is no doubt that he is seeking to benefit from harmful racial stereotypes and racial discord. He has raised such views by any fair reading of the newsletters. We await your response.
Charles, we have discussed the newsletters. We know their contents. We have links to other reports about them.
Mark suggested that if I were the publisher of a publication that advocated abortion on demand, I would have some explaining to do. Indeed I would. But simply because the publication that I happened to be the publisher of advocated this, that wouldn’t make me an advocate of abortion on demand. We’ve been through this, Charles.
Overall, I do like Ron Paul. He is a man who is honest and principled. I do disagree with him on certain issues relating to foreign policy and his interpretation of the Tenth Amendment but I do believe that he would do the reforming necessary to put America back on track. I could definitely cast my ballot for him if he becomes the GOP nominee.
Kelly writes, “Staying on the topic of the rights of gay and lesbian persons, one advantage to a better understanding of the relationship between the federal entity and individual states, would be the cessation of all this talk about federal amendments to the Constitution seeking to define “marriage” in a hetero-sexual way.”
Not sure if I’m understanding you right. Do you oppose the government defining marriage as a heterosexual institution?
In my opinion Ron Paul has to be viewed not as a true candidate, but as a dissenting voice to some of the political addictions that plague America. For me the two messages that really stand out are his positions on foreign affairs and his view of the corrupting influence of great debt enabled by fiat currency.
He doesn’t speak with the moral conviction of the neocon or the progressive. Paul chooses the tone of pragmatism mostly because the others abuse their power so readily. He is the one that challenges the notion of American ‘exceptionalism’. He protects us from ourselves and our heady opinion that we can do whatever we want or feel we need to do. He gives the nation a much need dose of humility as antidote to the ‘kool-aid’ of economic and military power (which he rightly sees as collapsing under its own weight). He has been the champion for fiscal restraint mostly by decrying an errant central bank. Ron Paul understands the power of corruption. In the underdeveloped world the powerful elites bribe the political and state institutions to get what they want. In the American and Western European societies they do that also, but add another element; namely the ‘reverse bribe’, where the political and state institutions bribe the voting citizenry with present benefits funded by unjust future burdens (unbearable debt).
He recognizes this charade and protests against it. To my mind, he and a growing number view the libertarian stance as the only possible solution to getting us off these addictive policies. In this regard I think he’s incorrect and that’s why his candidacy is not a viable solution. In sum, his true ‘value or purpose’ is in his ability to call attention to our tragic flaws rather than his prescriptive solutions. Furthermore, I think he realizes this himself and will be ready to retire after this his last battle.
This is well said, Tausign.
I wouldn’t support him given his political ideology (which, to his credit, he actually believes would be good for the country), but I like the guy and appreciate the dissenting voice he’s provided on the stage to some horrifying current right-wing orthodoxies.
So you like him, but wouldn’t support him because of some aspects of his political ideology? What are these aspects?
I fundamentally disagree with him about the proper role of government. I generally agree with his foreign policy proposals, but not so much with his domestic agenda.
Thanks, Kyle.
Ron Paul is probably the only candidate who is 1. Not flopping all over themselves trying to appeal to the far right, and 2. Seems to actually get his facts somewhat right when he speaks. I find him refreshing, but he lacks the charisma of a national leader.
I also agree with the comment about his followers. Locally, the Ron Paul supporters come across as deranged wingnuts and conspiracy theorists. You know, the “Black Helicopter” crowd suggesting the UN is going to take over the US.
Honestly, as a Catholic, I find it hard to support any of the candidates for president. It always seems to come down to the lesser of evils.
The workers are the engine of our economy. They are the only place where value is added and they are the true job creators. You can’t build demand from the middle class when the middle class is in debt. When people have no jobs and their wages lowered, it shows the system has failed. When demand is blocked by a lack of market funding, while corporations are reporting record profits, it seems that somehow the money is constrained. How will people buy when they have no money, no jobs and are heavily in debt? How will demand be built to take care of 14 million unemployed and 30 million under-employed ??? Capital will not lift a finger to create new facilities and jobs in US when they can do it for cheap and tax-free outside the US. When the U.S. cannot compete with other countries so that maybe we could sell our goods to them, because we failed to ensure that proper wages were paid overseas so we could grow the demand side, it just is another example of failure. Ron Paul wants no regulations, he wants to create a world that supports the ‘seller’ and yet not the people that have or need the money to buy. The 1% has all the money but they have maxed out their spending … now invest in speculation, commodities, gold, and overseas markets with higher returns than ours . Savings of the middle class are at dangerously low levels, and plans for retirement in disarray for tens of millions of people . You fight globalization with fair trade and by investing in the full potential of our people: infrastructure, education, job retraining, re-employment, health care etc … You invest in the TRUE wealth of the country, not in overseas markets. If you want a President that wants to ensure more money for the 1% and misery for everyone else, then I would suppose Ron Paul, or any other Republican would be your guy or girl.
@Thales–
You have a background in American history and yet you see no problem with turning civil rights issues back to the individual states? Well, then, as I said before, there is little to be gained by discussing this with you. You seem to equate inappropriate federal power with the enactment of civil rights legislation or court rulings which do not conform to Catholic doctrine. Well, news flash: this is not a theocracy. And if it were, it would not be a Catholic one.
Rodak,
I think that we’re talking past each other. We’re coming from different premises which haven’t been spelled out.
Of course I don’t have a problem with the 13th, 14th, 15th Amends. to the Constitution or federal laws enacted to enforce them. And I acknowledge that sometimes law at a national level is necessary to safeguard rights. But a thought: be careful about thinking that the answer to achieving justice is always found in the federal government. In actuality, today, when considering civil rights or criminal defendants rights or property rights, generally constitutional and federal protections are only a bare minimum, and the states often provide much greater protection of rights. And as I said, if the government is violating your rights, it’s easier to get that changed at the state rather than the federal level.
Regardless, as I said, I think we’re talking past each other, with each of us both misunderstanding the premises we’re coming from — and since it would be off-topic to get into them, we can stop the discussion.
you see no problem with turning civil rights issues back to the individual states
As an aside, if you’re talking about gay rights (which it seemed you were up above), that is a civil rights issue that is currently governed by the states, not the federal government. So I don’t see how a president Ron Paul would affect anything in that area. Now, race is a federal issue (through Title VII), but all states also have constitutional or state-level laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race.
First of all, great post, Kelly. And some good discussions on here as well!
I don’t know exactly where to jump in on this discussion, so I thought I would start with a few thoughts:
First of all, I think a lot of the discussion (particularly identifying “the Satanic selfish core” of Ron Paul’s ideology) stems from a debate I was taking part in a while back:
“Can someone be both Catholic and Libertarian?”
It seems to me that the brush that Ron Paul is often painted with is one of heartlessness. That he is someone who does not care about the poor (even though I wouldn’t necessarily classify him in the category of “wealthy” as he proposes his own salary to be about $30,000 a year if elected president).
I think this viewpoint discounts his credible history as a physician himself and his understanding of the system. Ultimately whenever we are talking about social programs and Ron Paul, think of it this way: He doesn’t want to see these things abolished; just handled by groups more capable at a more local level.
Rather than have the federal government manage EVERYTHING from thousands of miles away, he’d rather see run by local governments and charities. This seems to me like a sensible solution, particularly when you have a federal government so deep in debt, there is no sustainability to the programs they intend to run.
And back to the “Satanic selfish” nature of a more Libertarian-leaning viewpoint, let me ask you this: Is God’s plan for human kind “Satanic”? Does God force us to choose to love him and require that 1 day of our week be devoted to him? No. God gives us free will to make the loving and right choices ourselves. Something I’ve thought about is that in the same way, if our government makes charitable choices for us, there’s really no virtue in that, is there?
We shouldn’t need the government to force us to give to the poor … we should have the desire for justice to do that ourselves! The beauty, to ME, of a system leaning more toward personal freedom is we have the ability to MAKE the better choice ourself; the loving choice.
“He doesn’t want to see these things abolished; just handled by groups more capable at a more local level.”
Are you suggesting that the states and local municipalities are in better financial condition than is the federal government? Well, they are not. The federal government, in debt though it may be, is not “broke.” It still has plenty of income. The states, and even moreso many of the cities, have seen their tax bases eroded almost out of existence. They lack funds to maintain even their basic services, much less to support the poor. Ron Paul knows this good and well. So his rhetoric is essentially empty rabble-rousing. He is not a serious man. He is a wind-up ideologue. By which I mean, his rhetoric does not take into account actual conditions on the ground. It is the same in any weather. It is not honest.
” if our government makes charitable choices for us, there’s really no virtue in that, is there? ”
I agree with that. And my answer to that is that our virtue in this area would be in exercising our free will to vote for and elect representatives who promise to work for legislation which will benefit the weakest and the poorest amongst us through the humane expenditure of our voluntarily paid taxes.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but my understanding of the word “broke” would be when you lack any excess of wealth. For example, even if you had no debt but had nothing to spend, I would still assume you could (and would) say, “I’m broke.” If you have debt, I can only understand you would be LESS than broke.
Given that the Federal Government is (13 TRILLION dollars?) in debt, I would find it hard to imagine it would not be called “broke.”
That being said, if your point is that the US Government still has “plenty of income,” I can only imagine that is largely due to federal taxes. If that is the case, it is not the citizens of the US that are broke, but the government still is.
Think of it like this: if your taxes were allocated to your local government rather than primarily to the federal government, would the states and municipalities still be suffering in the way you say they are?
In cases of social programs in general, my understanding of Ron Paul’s view is that he simply wants them done away with at the federal level. If a state wants healthcare, they vote on it and it comes out of their state taxes; education: state taxes.
Also, some of your earlier comments indicate that states having the power to make decisions for themselves would erode (or “turn back the clock” on) civil liberties. I couldn’t see this being further from the truth. A Libertarian viewpoint is one that the role of the federal government is actually to PROTECT civil liberties (and Ron Paul has been very forthcoming on this), so to think that a state would be allowed to enact something that impedes on a person’s personal freedom seems illogical to me.
I don’t think too much time should be spent debating the practicality of Ron Paul’s ideals, because that is one theoretical opinion versus another. You can debate whether or not his ideas are “good ideas,” but I think that is missing the main intent of Kelly’s article. A more interesting discussion (to me) is the moral ramifications for his ideologies, particularly in light of the Catholic conscience.
I find your view that the charitable onus of the individual falls on their ability to make a choice to vote for politicians or legislation that sees wealth distibuted evenly very interesting! I never thought about it before and I think it is a good point. However, even if I make a decision to vote for something that will see the poor properly served, if I have no money myself, I am still voting for someone ELSE’S charity. In that way, I myself am still making moral choices FOR someone else. You see what I mean?
Also, final point: Taxes are not voluntary. They are mandatory.
Now if your talking about Ron Paul’s plan for Social Security, THEN you are talking about a voluntary tax. Individuals have the option to “opt out” and take no benefit from it, or “opt in” and both benefit from it themselves and allow others to benefit as well.
@Calgarian–
Paying taxes is not voluntary. But the taxes are assessed by the elected representatives of the people. The laws enforcing compliance with the system of taxation are written by the elected representatives of the people. So they are a part of a system in which any given citizen has the opportunity to exercise his will. It is not accurate to suggest that this is some kind of oppression. It is obviously not possible to run a free society if any citizen who disagrees with what the elected legislative bodies put into law is free not to comply with those laws.
The Ten Commandments are mandatory, but one doesn’t have to obey them. One only has to be ready to face the consequences of not obeying them. Taxes the same. If you have a real moral problem with paying the taxes you’ve been assessed, don’t pay them. I was drafted to go to Vietnam. I said no. The government needs to be obeyed only so far as you feel morally able to go along with it.
By broke I mean without income (which includes the necessary credit to borrow). The federal goverment is not broke in that sense.
I don’t think I ever suggested that taxes were some kind of oppression. To be honest, I live in Canada, where I pay significant taxes, and if I viewed it as such, that would mean I’m choosing to live in oppression! hahaha
I also don’t think I indicated a moral problem with paying taxes.
@Calgarian– You said:
“We shouldn’t need the government to force us to give to the poor … we should have the desire for justice to do that ourselves!”
I took the suggestion that you see federal taxation in support of social welfare programs as oppression from your use of the word “force” in the context above.
Truth be told, the reason Ron Paul and others of his ilk want the “safety net” moved to the local level is because they think that at that level such programs could be legislated out of existence altogether. They would be able to keep every shekel for themselves, which is their version of “the American Dream.”
If the funding were moved to the local government level, one would then be “forced” to give at the local government level. But at the local level where the poverty and the need is greatest–such as the counties and small towns of S.E. Ohio where I live–there is no tax base to support welfare programs. Without federal funds, the suffering would be even greater than it already is.
Have you seen the news reports of what is currently going on at the local level in Michigan–with the city of Detroit and with the predominately Black town of Inkster? This is oppression for you–occuring at the state and local level.
@Rodak
“Truth be told, the reason Ron Paul and others of his ilk want the “safety net” moved to the local level is because they think that at that level such programs could be legislated out of existence altogether. They would be able to keep every shekel for themselves, which is their version of “the American Dream.””
I am surprised you think this Rodak. The majority of libertarian-leaning conservatives, including myself, believe that the local level is best at running most safety net programs but don’t want them eliminated altogether. Yes, increased charity from the people as they choose would be great, too. There probably are hard-care purist libertarians who believe as you suggested but they only makeup a very small percentage of the population. I think safety nets are important but I also think we need to encourage more charity from the heart from individuals and allow them to choose which charities they want to donate money to. When there is an increase in taxes this greatly reduces or possibly eliminates peoples ability to do just that.
@ Teresa–
You ignore the part of my argument which–correctly–states that in areas of the country where poverty is greatest, and help most needed, there is no money available at the local level, whether we are talking about tax generated funds, or individual family incomes, for the truly needed to be given the help that they need. As I said, Ron Paul is talking from an ideologic stance that does not take circumstances on the ground, at the present time, into account. It is empty rhetoric.
Rodak, your example for the situation you speak of is Inkster and I think you are missing a big point here:
What we’ve been talking about is Ron Paul’s idea of STATE-based programs rather than reliance on Federal.
Your point seems to be that Inkster is broke (I hope I am using this word correctly! :D) and they have nothing to help themselves.
Keep in mind that we are talking about state aid, not municipal. In this case, a town like Inkster can receive assistance from the rest of the state.
“We shouldn’t need the government to force us to give to the poor … we should have the desire for justice to do that ourselves!”
We shouldn’t.
But we shouldn’t — if we believe in the principles of our country — consider social action through the American democratic political system to be “forced”.
And, just because enough people do not have the desire that Christ calls us to, sit by and leave the poor in need because individual charity is insuffient and social action is not implemented.
@Rodak
When you say no money, do you mean not enough money? If the federal funds ran dry do you think its possible for local charities and people to donate more money at the local level?
I know of what you are speaking when you talk about the towns in S.E. Ohio having an increased level of poverty. When I lived in Steubenville the surrounding areas around there seemed like like they were economically depressed. That’s why quite a few people traveled to Pittsburgh for work.
I think the answer is jobs. People need to gain better education and training so they are able to acquire the skills needed to fill the jobs. Once jobs are created for Americans – especially poor to middle class Americans – then more people will be off of welfare and other social safety net programs.
@ Teresa–
Certainly the answer is jobs. But right now the jobs aren’t there. The need, however, is always there. The advantage of the the federal government over the local is that the federal government collects money from every place where it is being generated and has the networks always in place to distribute the funds collected to the places where they are most needed. I always find it amusing when Catholics, whose Church is the most hierarchical, with the greatest amount of centralized power of any religioni on earth, and who criticize and belittle other Christian churches on precisely the basis of their decentralization, then turn around and vilify centralized power in government.
People need to gain better education and training so they are able to acquire the skills needed to fill the jobs.
EXACTLY! We need quality schools, not teacher lay-offs. We need access to higher education, community colleges and trade schools, not cuts in Pell Grants. We need a school lunch program so poor kids are not trying to study on an empty tummy. We need respect for the trades and crafts that comes from worker organization. We don’t need a repeal of the child labor laws so kids are in a factory rather than a schoolhouse.
“I always find it amusing when Catholics, whose Church is the most hierarchical, with the greatest amount of centralized power of any religioni on earth, and who criticize and belittle other Christian churches on precisely the basis of their decentralization, then turn around and vilify centralized power in government.”
This is absurd both for its assumption of Catholics’ superiority over other Christians and that anyone with a Libertarian ideology is an anarchist.
Here’s the thing: what is being called the 1% is behaving intelligently, if it is intelligent to act in one’s own best interest, even at the expense of others. They are sitting on trillions of dollars that could be used to create jobs. But they won’t use it unless the government will give them a guarantee that the government will do nothing in the future to hurt their bottom lines. They have been raking in record profits and they want a guarantee that this will continue for them, regardless of how the rest of the country fares. This is what they refer to as “free market capitalism.” It would be funny, were it not so disgracefully cynical.
If, however, you are not a member of the 1% and are voting for politicians who are supporting “free market capitalism,” you will have been led ask yourself a question and to answer “Yes” to it, when you should have answered “No.” That question is this: “It’s MY money, isn’t it?”
No, it’s not. You should listen to Jesus, not to Ron Paul. When Jesus was asked if it was proper to pay taxes to Rome, he asked to be shown a coin. When the coin was produced, he asked “Whose picture is on that coin?” The reply, of course, was “Caesar’s.” You know the rest of what he said. The money is not yours. When you answer “Yes” to the question, you sell yourself out. You might want to think about who it is that has made that purchase.
@Rodak
How is the money you earn from work not actually yours? Then why work? This is why big government policies decentivize people and have NEVER worked, as proven throughout all of history.
The whole text:
“They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”
That saying does not mean that Caeser or the government owns your money, property etc. It means that you are supposed to give Caeser what is his just due and give to God what is His.
How do you explain the Parable of the Talents where the master scolded the lazy servant and praised those who used their talents to earn more money? This is one example in the Bible which praises earning profits.
Beyond some legitimate taxation the government has no claim or “right” to a person’s money. What the person earns is their money.
@ Teresa–
The money in the anecdote about Caesar is about actual money. In the parable about the talents, the talents are a symbol for spiritual gifts–like the mustard seed, for instance.
Money is not ever generated by an individual in isolation. The whole society is interconnected, and money is only a credit given in exchange for work performed. In and of itself, money is nearly worthless. Society makes so much money available to lubricate the gears, because that generates more goods and services than the barter system can. But you don’t really own it. You are allowed–even encouraged–to use it. But it belongs to the whole society. You can see what happens to the worth of money when the financial system of a society crashes–it becomes next to worthless. If it were really yours, it would always maintain its value.
Teresa wrote:
“How do you explain the Parable of the Talents where the master scolded the lazy servant and praised those who used their talents to earn more money?”
I’m surprised that you would quote this parable in support of personal “ownership.” The parable makes it clear that all three servants’ money and the profits belong to the Master. The Master scolds the lazy servant: “Then you should have deposited my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received my money back with interest!” Not “you would have received…” but “I would have received…” The servants hold the money (αργυροσ/silver) for a limited time until the Master returns; they don’t own the money or anything else. The Master does.
“This is one example in the Bible which praises earning profits.”
Yes: multiplying God’s gifts for the sake of divine Love (our love for God, God’s love for us), not for ourselves!
@Rodak
All of society does not create this or that product. All of society does not start this or that business, or spend both money and time investing in businesses so your claim that the money earned from this or that person belongs to society is absurd and false. The exchanging of goods for money by people in our society does not mean that society owns that money, or has a right to that money. That is economic hogwash.
Then why does the ten million dollars that you have stashed away in the bank become just a row of numbers on a piece of paper if the the whole society’s economy crashes?
@Rodak
Actually most of the money is never anything else, either presently or if the market would crash. Most of the money is digitized.
Would society have lost that money? Or would the person who had acquired that wealth have lost their money?
Ron Paul did a nice job on tonight’s debate, btw.
Are you coming around to Ron Paul, Rodak? :)
Yes, he did. As did most of the candidates. Paul’s not my favorite, though.
Theresa wrote
“When you say no money, do you mean not enough money? If the federal funds ran dry do you think its possible for local charities and people to donate more money at the local level?”
Except that the numbers are barely comparable. The 2011 federal budget just for nutrition support (WIC and SNAP/food stamps) was $90 billion. The 2011 outlays for TANF (welfare) Medicaid and CHIP (children’s health insurance) was $346 billion. By contrast, all charitable giving in the US was $290 billion in 2010 (the last year I could find numbers for). So no, though it might be ideal in some sense, I do not see local charities and people stepping up to cover this outlay. Again, here we see subsidiarity playing a role: the federal level at the present time seems to be the most effective level on which to deal with this problem.
David, insightful numbers, however I think it still does not address the idea that if people have more to give (i.e. less taxation), they have simply that … more to GIVE!
This also does not address the issue of effectivity of more state programs than national social programs (i.e. more local tax rather than federal).
Reasonable points to raise, though I would note that both TANF and CHIP are funded by grants to the states who may or may not add their own money and design their own programs within broad federal guidelines.
@David
You have just presented an excellent case for the reform of those federal government programs. This shows that the federal government is not efficient in its helping of the poor and has been an utter failure in targeting and stopping the underlying issues which cause poor economic situations. How much more do you want the federal government to waste?
You have just presented an excellent case for the reform of those federal government programs. This shows that the federal government is not efficient in its helping of the poor
Here is the problem with too many conservatives. A mere citation of the dollar amount of federal spending says nothing pro or con as to the success or efficiency of a program. It just suggests that many conservatives live in a world unaware of the extent of need in this country.
This is why my pastor, in his great wisdom, rarely preaches about the virtue to charitable giving, but instead of the virtue of phyiscal contact with the poor. And living in some gated community is not the way to do it.
Theresa,
how on earth do you draw that conclusion from those numbers? I have given no evidence of waste, fraud or inefficiency, but rather of the scope of the need which you want to address with private charity.
@ Teresa–
Can you show some evidence that the expenditures David cites were wasted? Do you think that the funding of the CHIP program, for instance, which enabled poor children to receive medical care that they otherwise would not have received was wasted? Is that because those children are somehow not worth spending money on?
Look, nobody argues that the answer is jobs. And the conservative stand is that the government cannot create jobs. The private sector is hoarding billions upon billions of dollars in profits that they could use to expand and create jobs, but are not. So there’s the solution to that problem, in embryo.
In the meantime, however, hunger is immediate. The need for health care is immediate. Those things cannot wait for the economy to recover and for people to be put back to work. Moreover, even when the economy is hitting on all cylinders there are millions left without work, who need help. There has never been, and never will be, 100% employment.
Right now, if I were a conservative, I would stop vilifying the government, and begin putting pressure on the corporate interests who are not using their recent RECORD PROFITS to expand and create jobs.
Can you prove that all of the money was used efficiently or effectively? The point is that with the enormous amount of money that has been spent on the poor how come that money didn’t eradicate any poverty? Poverty has gotten worse with increased funding, not better. Simply throwing money at the problem isn’t going to solve the problem of poverty. Is the CHIP program solely paid for by taxpayers? Or do the parents have to contribute to their child’s medical expenses? If the medical expenses are solely taken care of by the government (aka the taxpayers) the parents of these children should have some skin in the game. If they don’t, the parents have no reason to use prudence about the number of medical visits they go to and other medical expenses. They may just think that the government is going to pick up the tab instead of being cognizant and judicious in how often they have doctor visits. I am not saying that we shouldn’t help those in need but unless the parents pay some of their child’s medical expenses it will be near impossible for them to take some responsibility for their child’s health care, which includes the costs to maintain the welfare or health of the child. Giving them money without strings attached enables them to be reliant on the government for their needs. They need to be helped out of poverty, not simply given more money. That only creates reliance on the government. And, believe me the government isn’t that reliable.
Theresa,
“If the medical expenses are solely taken care of by the government (aka the taxpayers) the parents of these children should have some skin in the game. If they don’t, the parents have no reason to use prudence about the number of medical visits they go to and other medical expenses.”
This comment shows absolutely no understanding or compassion for the poor. How could a parent not be invested in their children’s health? As for prudence: when a visit to the doctor means taking time off from work (w/ no comp time and boss willing to fire you for missing too much work), finding someone to watch the rest of your kids, and then taking your child to a doctor who accepts medicaid/CHIP patients, often without a car and relying on public transportation, do you really think they are going to go running to the doctor every time their kid has the sniffles? I doubt it. This is much more likely to happen with upper middle-class Moms with excellent private insurance and indulgent pediatricians.
Can you prove that all of the money was used efficiently or effectively?
Teresa, YOU made the assertion. Do you have one iota of evidence to back up these things you post?
The point is that with the enormous amount of money that has been spent on the poor how come that money didn’t eradicate any poverty?
Medicare and Social Security alone have lifted a third of the elderly out of poverty. We no longer have the County Poor Farms.
Poverty has gotten worse with increased funding,
The facts are to the contrary.
Simply throwing money at the problem isn’t going to solve the problem of poverty.
Correct. Thoughtful, properly funded social welfare policies help address the problem. Like Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare/Medicaid/Affordable Care, Workers’ Comp, LIHEAP, SNAP, School lunches, Pell Grants, Student Loans, Head Start, EITC, etc.
If they don’t, the parents have no reason to use prudence about the number of medical visits they go to and other medical expenses. They may just think that the government is going to pick up the tab instead of being cognizant and judicious in how often they have doctor visits. I am not saying that we shouldn’t help those in need but unless the parents pay some of their child’s medical expenses it will be near impossible for them to take some responsibility for their child’s health care, which includes the costs to maintain the welfare or health of the child.
I won’t call that a hateful comment, because I know social welfare programs is not you field of expertize, but it is a terrible thing to say. ALL evidence is that poor parents, even those with private or public health insurance, take their children to the doctor TOO INFREQUENTLY with negative results for these children. The bottom line is that anyone telling the poor to take their children to the doctor LESS often makes a fraud of whatever pro-life pretenses he or she may have.
Your opinions are to the contrary. The facts are on my side. Stop closing your eyes to reality. That’s the problem with progressives you only care about emotions and intentions, not the facts. Stop filling your brain with progressive talking points Kurt and actually think for yourself. You believe in big government no matter what when it has been proven to hurt the person time and time again, worse than any limited government program has in the past or present. Big Government is a big failure and creates even more problems than the ones it tries to fix. You have given no statistics to prove your case so unless you show statistics don’t even go there about assertions and lack of proof to back statements up. You clearly believe in government dependence and not helping lift the person out of trouble. You believe in keeping the poor hooked on the big government way and that is why you believe in the social safety net big government programs instead of reforming them to make them better.
The facts are on my side.
If that were so, you are keeping them well hiddened, never sharing them in your posts!!!!
After a while it starts to come out that too many conservatives do not just have a political theory in which they may or may not be mistaken in but a real contempt for the poor. Gingrich exposes this trait recently and now we see it here. Middle class people can have health insurance but if lower income people have it, they will abuse it. They will go to the doctor’s office for entertainment ( never mind that my experience is that white collar people go the doctor during the workday, while the working poor need to take leave for their jobs and probably transfer buses.) And please, Teresa, don’t start with the conservative line about the “culture” of poor people, which we all know is very thinly veiled racism.
1 Timothy 6:17-19 “Tell the rich in the present age not to be proud and not to rely on so uncertain a thing as wealth but rather on God, who richly provides us with all things for our enjoyment. Tell them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous, ready to share, thus accumulating as treasure a good foundation for the future, so as to win the life that is true life.”
The problem is not the 1% (at least as far as jobs are concerned). The problem is the government. If the government (Congress) would repeal Obamacare which has a vast many burdensome regulations on businesses, EPA regulations, and the other crippling regulations that the Obama administration has instituted then both small businesses and corporate businesses would be hiring. Some regulations are fine but the excessive regulations which are crippling are economy today need to be removed as an impediment to job creation.
Volunteering is probably one of the best ways to help the poor. Regardless of whether one is wealthy or not they can volunteer to help the poor in their communities.
It is wrong to create an environment of envy and the Bible has a lot to say against that. That is what the progressives do, they have stirred up the pot so to speak and encouraged people to be envious of those who have succeeded in life instead of encouraged the people to work hard and work their way up the ladder so they can be successful in life. There are plenty of successful people who are wealthy who started out poor and had to work their way up the ladder. They did not achieve instant success or instant wealth overnight. Father Michael Scanlon hit the nail on the head when he stated that the main problem with today’s culture is that people want and demand Instant gratification.
I’ve been rendered speechless.
@David I am very compassionate and understanding as far as helping the poor, just not with other peoples’ money. I am sure that most parents have a vested interest in the well-being of their child but that is different from having a vested interest monetarily in their child’s care. There are plenty of people who take off of work for medical reasons. Not just the poor.
“This is much more likely to happen with upper middle-class Moms with excellent private insurance and indulgent pediatricians.”
I doubt it. Middle-Class moms know their budget and have a limited amount of money. They are not running around on the government dole so your assertion doesn’t hold water. The poor have more of a propensity to use the physician’s office more often than needed because they’re not paying for it. Other people are.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree ;-)
Theresa,
your inability to read and understand anything I write does continue to amaze me.
“not with other peoples’ money.”
Since we both (presumably) pay taxes, it is disingenuous to refer to this as other people’s money.
“There are plenty of people who take off of work for medical reasons. Not just the poor.”
My point, which Kurt echoes is, exactly the opposite: the poor do not take off time for medical reasons at the rate in which those of us privileged to have health insurance, sick leave, etc. do. They work while sick. Their children get sent to school sick. The put off going to the doctor (either for themselves or their children) because they cannot afford it. Affording it involves more than paying for a doctor’s visit, as I tried to make clear in my last post: there is a real economic and time cost involved in going to the doctor that is not just non-trivial but a significant obstacle.
“The poor have more of a propensity to use the physician’s office more often than needed because they’re not paying for it. ”
Do you have any empirical evidence to back up this assertion, or is this just your ideological prejudices speaking? I can readily compare the behavior of my family (comfortably middle-class and teetering on the brink of upper-middle class) and that my colleagues and friends (all similarly situated) with the experiences recounted to me by my friends at the local Catholic Worker house, who actually work closely with poor families daily. So I think I am on very firm ground in saying that you are wrong.
I am not going to jovially agree to disagree. If you want to keep believing these things that is your right, but I will call you out when you post them.
One residence doesn’t account for all of America. You are wrong. Face it, you are clueless to the realities of the poor, the costs, what they do and don’t do with regards to medical expenses and what those costs related to the poor and government programs entail. Plus, you clearly have no idea how those government programs and there cost affects the rest of America.
You are wrong! If your not going act like a decent person and agree to disagree so be it. I’ll be the Mrs. Nice Gal.
Praying for you.
Thank you for your prayers. But if this is you as “Mrs. Nice Gal” I hope I never run into you in a bad mood.
I must jump in here. How have you been hurt by big government?
Something I find striking about this very long list of comments on a nominally Catholic web-site is how little actual evidence is presented. This, especially as it drifted away from the topic of Ron Paul and into more “war of the worldviews” territory. David, Cindy, Henry and others quoted a few hard numbers or offered links to other places in the web. A few others offered scriptural references (but sometimes so out-of-context they can’t be taken seriously). There’s occasional demand for “where’s your evidence?” but surprisingly little “here’s my evidence.”
Most (and probably all) the commentors here have at least college degrees and many are academic faculty members… Is it really that hard to quote sources to support a claim, when someone else makes precisely the opposite claim? Google, and especially scholar.google.com, make it so easy to find real references and facts to support a position. Or is it just too much fun to trumpet “you are wrong!”
Wouldn’t it be cool to have a box on the page which tallies the ratio of (claims / supporting evidence) for each commentor?
Hey dudes,
I see alot of this discussion (particularly related to the role of government) being a fundamental difference between a Republican political philosophy and a Democratic political philosophy.
If this is the case, a discussion on Ron Paul seems pointless. If you already don’t agree with a Republican philosophy, chances are you are not going to like aspects of Ron Paul.
No candidate will ever be a “perfect fit” for anyone person (well, maybe VERY rarely!) so what if instead, we have a discussion on why Ron Paul would/wouldn’t be a better GOP candidate than the others in the running?
This to me seems like a more interesting and fruitful discussion. Especially because whether you plan to vote for a GOP candidate in the presidential election or not, you still have a right to a vote in the PRIMARY elections. Even if, let’s say, you are going to vote for Obama for re-election, isn’t it only sensible that you should find the best candidate (or lesser evil) in the GOP to vote for in the primaries?
In light of Frank and Calgarian’s comments, why don’t we let this conversation come to an end? If anyone has what they feel are closing remarks then go ahead and make them. Perhaps they might relate to the topic introduced in my post.
Enjoyed the post and much of the discussion.
All in all, I found it to be quite thought-provoking and I’d be lying if I didn’t say I feel challenged on the morality of my own political world view.
Interested to see what comes of the upcoming elections.
I enjoyed your post on Ron Paul, Kelly.
There has been a dramatic increase in federal spending over the last 50 years while the poverty rate has stayed the same. The poverty rate hasn’t gotten worse or better over the past fifty years. My main point is how much money is it going to take to eradicate hunger? Or be close to eliminating hunger since there will always be some that are poor? By all estimates even though the poverty rate has stayed the same the increase in spending per person has been substantial and has had no affect in halting the trend in the numbers of people who are poor so this could be an indicator of the ineffectiveness of the social safety net programs in solving the issues within the poor communities.
http://www.federalsafetynet.com/poverty-and-spending-over-the-years.html
Since Kelly wants to close the comments whoever wants to continue with this conversation is more than welcome to over at my blog.