June 27, 2011

Breakdown of Ron Paul's positions

Breakdown of Ron Paul's positions (via Vic in Ace's comments) I'm a little behind on this one, but I want to get all of them posted.




Well on to the next "declared" candidate in the CFG list.

Ron Paul Cap and Trade/AGW
A quick check shows that it look like Ron Paul has always been against Cap and Trade calling it a huge regressive tax that would drive away business. On the AGW scam itself in 2008 he said that there may be some human impact in global warming but felt like it wasn’t much. Also, he felt that evidence for continued warming was mixed. He felt like we should do "common sense” solutions like ending oil company "subsidies” to allow the price of oil to go up. That kinda sounds like BS to me. In 2009 after the climate-gate e-mail thing he called the global panic a huge hoax.

I’ll give him a positive on this one.

Gun Control
He has always been a strong advocate of the 2nd amendment and supporting the right to keep and bear arms. He did, however, vote against the two bills that would shield gun makers from lawsuits by the gun grabbers. He is rated "A” by the NRA.

I would still give him a positive on this.

Small government in general (spending and regulation)

On taxes he is so far into reducing taxes it becomes somewhat questionable. He wants to totally eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing. Here is a statement from his site from a 2008 interview:

"I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.

We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don’t need to "replace” the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better.”

On spending it is evident from that statement that he would reduce spending as well. He was one of the few Republicans that voted against the spending bills this years as well. So his record is good there.

On regulations he said this after the bailout bill.

Since the bailout bill passed, I have been frequently disturbed to hear "experts” wrongly blaming the free market for our recent economic problems and calling for more regulation. In fact, further regulation can only make things worse.

Looking at some of the hits I got on a simple search it looks like he has consistently spoke out against government regulation.


They tried to get him to say we did need more regulations in the SEC etc to prevent the collapse. He basically told them that their regulations is what caused it and that if anything needed more regulation it was the Federal Reserve.

Overall he gets a plus in this category

Socialized Healthcare
He has consistently spoke out against socialized medicine in all forms and voted against it when it came up. He voted against Bush’s program on drugs.

He gets a positive here.

Border control/Amnesty
Unlike most libertarians he has been an outspoken opponent of illegals and amnesty. Although he said that fences wouldn’t do much good he did vote for the border fence in 2006. He opposes amnesty in all forms and wants and amendment to end the anchor baby loophole.

He gets a plus here.

Abortion
He has a strong record on being pro-life in both rhetoric and deeds. He believes that Roe v Wade was bad law and that the question of abortion should be returned to the States.

He gets a positive here.

Summary
Wow, strongest review yet! Positives on all 6. So why is Ron Paul so hated by conservatives? There are two issues that are not in the 6 chosen categories that hurt him with conservatives. The most troubling one is foreign policy. He is basically an isolationist and wants to decrease the military. His policy towards Israel is also antagonistic.

The other issue that hurts him is support for decriminalizing drugs and ending the war on drugs. Personally I agree with him here, provided we can do some other stuff that makes drug use the sole responsibility of the "user” and the public will not support them in ANY manner, including medical care.

Posted by: Vic at June 17, 2011 08:53 AM (M9Ie6)

Posted by: Jay in Ames at 09:26 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 811 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Your closing comments on Ron Paul are precisely why I would have a problem with the man.  His isolationist atitude, his stance on Israel, and his views on military strength/obligations.  If none of these were of a concern right now (and you know with the middle east, China, and other bad apples, that they are)  I could get behind him.   But not at this point in historical time.

Posted by: Guy S at June 27, 2011 05:45 PM (Xtj0/)

2 To be fair, that is Vic's closing comments.
I couldn't be more accurate if I tried, though. He's pulling in the right direction, and his heart is in the right place. A little too isolationist, though. Wasn't that a problem in the early 20th century?

Posted by: Jay in Ames at June 28, 2011 07:10 AM (UEEex)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
21kb generated in CPU 0.0168, elapsed 0.0478 seconds.
38 queries taking 0.041 seconds, 77 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.