Ron Paul Soft on Big Government???

[Expat]

Those invasions were only the latest in a long, long string of interference in the middle east.

I was just basing my comment on your use of occupy in the sentence.

What were we doing wrong when they started attacking our ships during the Jefferson administration?

 

[mrjarrell]

I was just basing my comment on your use of occupy in the sentence.

What were we doing wrong when they started attacking our ships during the Jefferson administration?

That wasn't the Middle East. That happened in North Africa. Totally separate continents.

 

[rambone]

What were we doing wrong when they started attacking our ships during the Jefferson administration?

The pirates hated us because we are free.

 

[Expat]

That wasn't the Middle East. That happened in North Africa. Totally separate continents.

He didn't bring the Middle East into it until his response.

Here is the post that I was replying to so that you don't get confused again.

I don't think another country's democracy is worth the cost of American lives and of bankrupting this country. I also think that the less we go abroad and occupy countries, the less we have to worry about pissing off people so much that they want to kill us.

Thanks anyway though.

 

[CarmelHP]

That wasn't the Middle East. That happened in North Africa. Totally separate continents.

You didn't have a problem with Afghanistan not being in the Middle East.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The pirates hated us because we are free.

Free and Christian, yes.

A great book I read on the subject last year:

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/White-Gold-Extraordinary-Thomas-Million/dp/0374289352[/ame]

 

[rjstew317]

Not to mention countries like Egypt, Libya, Algeria, and Morocco make up the majority of north Africa. Sure they are technically on a different continent, but they share much of the same ideology as the rest of the middle east.

 

[mrjarrell]

You didn't have a problem with Afghanistan not being in the Middle East.

A little early for happy hour isn't it?

 

[Bond 281]

He didn't bring the Middle East into it until his response.

Here is the post that I was replying to so that you don't get confused again.



Thanks anyway though.

I'm not suggesting that we can avoid all fighting and conflict by being non-interventionist, I'm only suggesting that doing so would probably minimize the conflict.

 

[CarmelHP]

A little early for happy hour isn't it?

No earlier than for you. "Middle East" you may be surprised, isn't a continent, it's a region.

From Wikipedia:

The Middle East is a region that encompasses Western Asia and Northern Africa. It is often used as a synonym for Near East, in opposition to Far East.

From Merriam-Webster:

the countries of SW Asia & N Africa

If you're going to be pedantic, at least get it right.

 

[jeremy]

I'm not suggesting that we can avoid all fighting and conflict by being non-interventionist, I'm only suggesting that doing so would probably minimize the conflict.

I would be willing to wager it would actually have the Opposite effect that you seem to feel would happen...

 

[Lex Concord]

Attempting to steer this back on track, why do you believe Ron Paul was so soft on Big Government? This is especially confusing to me because, as Mark Steyn says, Paul is one of the few pointing out that the USA is broke.

1. Baby steps, eat the elephant one bite at a time, unrealistic to assume it will all get done in one move?

2. This plan has the most political support in Congress?

3. This plan would cheese the fewest number of people off?

4. Some other motive?

If the USA is as broke as Paul repeatedly says, then why not more dramatic plans than this?

This is not one bite of the elephant, but a desire to take off one of its legs below the knee on day one, or as soon thereafter as possible. The alternatives given from the rest of the R field are analagous to trimming the elephant's toenails in comparison. 9-9-9, which is probably the next best plan I have heard from the current field so far (kudos to Cain for actually proposing something beyond the perennial 'cut wasteful spending') is targeted at being revenue neutral. There are no other plans for true cuts. Cuts in the rate of growth don't count; even Rush Limbaugh has been saying this for decades.

Whether he could accomplish even this "soft on big government" (a tongue-in-cheek title, per the author's own words) if elected, his proposed plan "drops a reality bomb" (Politico, I think) on the rest of the field.

This proposal will offer the others seeking the Republican nomination a chance to show their true fiscal colors by comparison. I'm sure they will not disappoint.

 

[mrjarrell]

Interesting piece here on Paul's refusal to accept Medicare and Medicaid in his OB practice. He treated government funded patients free. That's pretty cool and shows an adherence to principle that few could emulate.

Ron Paul, Obstetrician: No Abortions, No Federal Money - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

 

[jeremy]

Interesting piece here on Paul's refusal to accept Medicare and Medicaid in his OB practice. He treated government funded patients free. That's pretty cool and shows an adherence to principle that few could emulate.

Ron Paul, Obstetrician: No Abortions, No Federal Money - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Actually Many could emulate, just they choose not to...

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Interesting piece here on Paul's refusal to accept Medicare and Medicaid in his OB practice. He treated government funded patients free. That's pretty cool and shows an adherence to principle that few could emulate.

Ron Paul, Obstetrician: No Abortions, No Federal Money - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

He wants to work for free, fine. Good for him.

Why is a doctor with $200K in student loans to repay, a $80K+ annual malpractice insurance bill, 65% overhead, on call 24/7, and reimbursed at a rate of 80% for their billed services unprincipled if they expect to be paid for their services? Sounds like a according to ability / needs attitude.

 

[steveh_131]

He wants to work for free, fine. Good for him.

Why is a doctor with $200K in student loans to repay, a $80K+ annual malpractice insurance bill, 65% overhead, on call 24/7, and reimbursed at a rate of 80% for their billed services unprincipled if they expect to be paid for their services? Sounds like a according to ability / needs attitude.

It shows that he disagrees with the government's redistribution of wealth in the form of medicare and is willing to lose money to adhere to his principles.

That doesn't mean every other doctor is unprincipled. It simply means he has a proven track record of sticking to his principles even when it is inconvenient. I think that's a pretty important quality to find in a candidate, when most seem to immediately abandon their campaign promises once elected.

 

[rambone]

Sounds like a according to ability / needs attitude.

Karl Marx didn't invent the concept of charity.

It shows that he disagrees with the government's redistribution of wealth in the form of medicare and is willing to lose money to adhere to his principles.

That doesn't mean every other doctor is unprincipled. It simply means he has a proven track record of sticking to his principles even when it is inconvenient. I think that's a pretty important quality to find in a candidate, when most seem to immediately abandon their campaign promises once elected.

And the truly commendable thing is that he was doing this before he was in the national spotlight. It was never a publicity stunt during a re-election campaign.

 

[dlbrown75]

LOL. In his press conference he said "That's a start." He's gotta win over this party first, most of whom are themselves Big Government supporters.

And if Ron's plan is soft on Big Government, then join me in calling the rest of the candidates active supporters of Big Government.

+1

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

It shows that he disagrees with the government's redistribution of wealth in the form of medicare and is willing to lose money to adhere to his principles.

That doesn't mean every other doctor is unprincipled. It simply means he has a proven track record of sticking to his principles even when it is inconvenient. I think that's a pretty important quality to find in a candidate, when most seem to immediately abandon their campaign promises once elected.

It's a stretch to call medicare a redistribution of wealth. It's a lot of things (some good, some not so good), but not that.

I otherwise agree with what you're saying. I was questioning the premise that RP has impecable principles that other doctors are unable or unwilling to emulate because they need to be paid (even the crap repayment provided by medicare / medicaid) for their services.

Karl Marx didn't invent the concept of charity.

Neither did Ron Paul.

 

[steveh_131]

It's a stretch to call medicare a redistribution of wealth. It's a lot of things (some good, some not so good), but not that.

How is it not redistribution of wealth? It is taking money out of our paychecks and giving it to other people. I don't know what else you'd call it.