PDA

View Full Version : How is Ron Paul perceived in the eyes of a liberal?


SNR
08-13-2007, 12:49 AM
This is a question for you, jAz and others who want to chime in.

He's attractive to a wide range of voters. We know that many of his fellow Republicans hate his guts, but how about from across the aisle? If Ron Paul were elected, how do you think (you/liberals) would view the administration?

Boyceofsummer
08-13-2007, 02:13 AM
he will get my vote. GO RON PAUL!

elvomito
08-13-2007, 02:31 AM
do you really think he could eliminate the IRS?

Discuss Thrower
08-13-2007, 02:51 AM
do you really think he could eliminate the IRS?

He'd get killed by their Enforcement squad.

I want Ron Paul to win, but it's not going to happen.

Saggysack
08-13-2007, 05:50 AM
I like Ron Paul. Could I vote for him, I dunno. I think he is right on many things. But saying that, I think overall he is a dreamer that has zero chance of getting the majority of his proposals passed. Eliminate the IRS, never gonna happen. Building a 700mile fence along a 2100 mile border, waste of money. Immigration proposals lacking IMO. Some of his proposals for gun control I have issues with. Is it really that big of a problem to wait 3 days to complete the purchase of a firearm? I don't oppose the death penalty like him. I don't think we need a constitutional amendment for school prayer. I'd like to hear more from him on the environment. He opposed a minimum wage increase, which I wholeheartedly disagree with him about. Allowing a employer to interfere with union organizing is not my cup of tea, but it is his. He has no real plan for fixing social security. I don't agree with him on not allowing a gay person to be able to adopt. I would like to know how much lobbyist gives to who and how much, he doesn't.

BucEyedPea
08-13-2007, 09:34 AM
To those who think elimination of the IRS is impossible:

This actually has a lot more support than is known about, on both sides of the aisle. I've posted this here before. I know the ED of the Fair Tax movement ( abolishes the IRS) and even John Edwards supports it. Even Bush, promised to sign it at one time. It just got knocked down by someone else in his administration. A Paul presidency would move it front and center...that I am certain about.

No doubt, a Paul presidency can't deliver everything he believes in nor does any presidency. I do thing the hottest issues today would though: war, runaway illegal immigration, NeoCon control over foreign policy. After these I think nafta and tax reform would likely be addressed. I dunno about his other issues though. But war and foreign policy he'd have most control over directing as CIC and Chief Executive. And he's served in the military.

jAZ
08-13-2007, 09:42 AM
What do I know about him, or what do I agree with about his platform?

Know? 21st Century Goldwater (more so than McCain).

Agree? I think Libertarians go too far down the anarchist path, but I'd take a Libertarian Presidential Candidate over a potpourri of NeoCon/Moralist candidate.

jAZ
08-13-2007, 09:44 AM
I know the ED of the Fair Tax movement ( abolishes the IRS) and even John Edwards supports it.
Link?

irishjayhawk
08-13-2007, 09:44 AM
I'm a moderate but right now it's Paul. Then Obama if he doesn't run with Hillary.

Saggysack
08-13-2007, 10:04 AM
Link?

ROFL

Not gonna happen. You know that jAZ.

FTR, BEP, Edwards doesn't want a consumption tax. Where do you come up with this crap?

Cochise
08-13-2007, 10:15 AM
ROFL

Not gonna happen. You know that jAZ.

FTR, BEP, Edwards doesn't want a consumption tax. Where do you come up with this crap?

No kidding, the only thing that's come out of his mouth in months is that we need to raise taxes on the rich. How would you ever get that idea?

He also wants to raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 28%.

I'd think that given these factors he'd be one of the people most opposed to the idea of a 'fair tax'.

HolmeZz
08-13-2007, 10:41 AM
Like and respect most of his foreign policy views. Would prefer him to anybody else currently run for the Republican nomination and I'd probably care enough to go out and vote for him over Hillary. But that's never coming to fruition so it doesn't matter.

BucEyedPea
08-13-2007, 10:50 AM
I don't have a link...I said who the source was. You won't find everything on the Net, or in the MSM. I have no reason to disbelieve this source. It is not crap ....but you can choose to disbelieve it or not. However the Fair Tax idea, in various forms has been ongoing for over ten years. It has support on both sides of the aisle with more over time—except for the real hard socialist left who the Fair Tax people do not bother with at all on it.

I got this from a personal conversation with the ED of the Fair Tax on June 22 of this year. He has dinner with these guys and has travelled the country educating groups and politicians on the Fair Tax as a full time job. Just because there has been no public pronouncements in the media or otherwise does not mean there aren't back room dealings and conversations before it reaches the news. ( there has been some news on it though) Kinda like when Gingrich admitted privately to a bunch of conservatives that he wasn't a conservative.

Per this ED, I challenged him on Edwards stand on this regarding in relation to his "Two Americas". His answer was that it would provide him with more money for his "Two Americas."That's why Edwards likes it.

Guiliani, on the other hand, does not support the Fair Tax. He supports Forbe's Flat Tax. Fred Thompson has key advisors and staff that support it, so he is surrounded but has not made any opinion on it yet. Paul will sign it, but as an interim compromise. He gave me more names which I posted somewhere here around that time. I just don't recall off-hand.

Disbelieve or not, like it or not....there is support for this that exists in both camps and vice versa. Contact the Fair Tax folks and make a call. I'm sure you can all google to find a contact number and make a call.

banyon
08-13-2007, 11:10 AM
I don't have a link...I said who the source was. You won't find everything on the Net, or in the MSM. I have no reason to disbelieve this source. It is not crap ....but you can choose to disbelieve it or not.

I choose disbelief. I've supported Edwards for a while and have never heard him say that.I'm going to go with what his website says his tax plan is instead of what you heard rd hand on WorldNet daily or whatever.
http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070726-economic-plan/

Edwards Unveils Bold Economic Plan to Restore Fairness, Reform America's Tax Code, & Reward Hard Work
Jul 26, 2007 10:00 AM

Des Moines, Iowa Today in Iowa, Senator John Edwards unveiled his bold plan to reform our tax code to reward work, not the privileges of the insiders, and help regular families get ahead. Our country is divided into Two Americas – one for those at the top and one for everyone else. In the Two Americas, there is no end to the special tax breaks for multinational corporations and wealthy individuals. These taxpayers can afford lawyers to help them exploit weaknesses in the tax code and lobbyists to help them get still more tax breaks. Edwards believes this is an issue of fairness – those at the top should pay their fair share, instead of making hard-working families bear most of the burden. Edwards today laid out his plan to build One America and put our tax code back in line with our values.

His plan will: (1) create three new tax breaks to honor and strengthen three pillars of America's middle class: savings, work, and families, (2) require a fair contribution from the wealth of high-income Americans, reversing the shift of the tax code onto middle class wages, and (3) end special tax breaks for insiders.

"It's time for us to put our economy back in line with our values," said Edwards. "It's time to end the president's war on work. And it's time to restore fairness to a tax code that has been driven badly out of whack by the wrongheaded rules of the Washington establishment – more wealth for the wealthy and more power for the powerful. In America, when the middle-class makes money from hard work they shouldn't pay higher taxes than when the rich make money from money."

Edwards will overhaul the tax code with three new tax breaks to strengthen the middle-class pillars of savings, work, and family. He will also reverse the war on work by requiring the most fortunate Americans to pay a fairer rate of tax on their investments and take on special tax breaks for the insiders.

"I still believe passionately in the American Dream because I've lived it myself," said Edwards. "I came from a family with very little - my father had to borrow $50 to bring me home from the hospital. Now I want for no material thing. I know that we can fix the mess we are in. I know that we can replace Two Americas with One America. But let me tell you one thing – it's not going to be easy and it's going to take all of us together. Because the people with power aren't going to give it up without a fight. And we can't sit down with them and make a deal. We can't triangulate our way to big change; we can't compromise our way to big change – we need to lead the way to big change. And that starts with me being specific, clear and honest about what I'm going to do."

Edwards will help regular families save and get ahead by:

Creating a Get Ahead Credit, which will expand the Savers Credit to match savings up to $500 a year, providing as much as an additional dollar for every dollar of savings.
Boosting low-income families' savings with work bonds, which will supplement the Earned Income Tax Credit to match the savings of low-income workers up to $500 per year.
Exempting from taxes each family's first $250 in interest, capital gains, and dividends.
Allowing families to deposit part or all of their child tax credit into a tax-free savings account.
Expanding the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit to pay up to 50 percent of child care expenses up to $5,000 and make it partially refundable to benefit low-income working families.
Tripling the EITC for 4 million adults without children and cutting the marriage penalty for 3 million families.

In the past six years, President Bush has cut taxes on capital gains and dividends and started to eliminate taxes on inheritances completely. As a result of his regressive tax policies, the federal tax burden has been pushed onto the backs of working Americans. As president, Edwards will reverse President Bush's "War on Work" by:

Raising the top tax rate on long-term capital gains to 28 percent, the same rate signed into law by President Reagan. The 28 percent rate will ensure that high-income investors will pay taxes on their investment income at a similar rate to what regular families pay on their earned income.
Repealing the Bush tax cuts for the most fortunate families, who make more than $200,000 a year.
Ending the abuse of foreign tax havens.
Closing the hedge fund and private equity loopholes.
Capping executive pensions.

For more information on Edwards' plan to reform our tax code to reward work, not just wealth, click here to read more

patteeu
08-13-2007, 11:52 AM
No kidding, the only thing that's come out of his mouth in months is that we need to raise taxes on the rich. How would you ever get that idea?

He also wants to raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 28%.

I'd think that given these factors he'd be one of the people most opposed to the idea of a 'fair tax'.

Edwards probably wants the FAIR Tax in addition to a more progressive income tax! ;)

banyon
08-13-2007, 11:53 AM
BTW I think this a good question in the OP so I'd like to reply to that also.

I don't describe myself as a liberal, but as a progressive.
I think that the Libertarian Political Test (usually the "World's Smallest Political Quiz") explains the commonalities pretty well.

I think apart from policies, you have to first admire him as a man of priniciple and character, which is this field is a rarity.

On Policy, Because Liberals (and Progressives) generally believe in increased economic regulation and decreased regulation over individual civil liberties, I think it is fair to say that on most personal issues, there is a lot of agreement with Paul. So his opposition to the Patriot Act and his opposition to the Drug War are issues where there is mainly agreement.

His ardent stance on the Iraq War and Military de-escalation appeals even more to me.

On the other hand, he is Pro-Life and also against progessive taxation. Those don't sit well with most lefties. I've said this before, but I think his policies would eventually result in the corporations which already excercise so much power over our daily lives basically going unchecked and stepping in defacto for the government programs he cut, but without accountability to anyone. For those reasons, I would probably not vote for him unless he is running against Hillary, who I think is probably the biggest corporate tool out there.

patteeu
08-13-2007, 11:58 AM
This is a question for you, jAz and others who want to chime in.

He's attractive to a wide range of voters. We know that many of his fellow Republicans hate his guts, but how about from across the aisle? If Ron Paul were elected, how do you think (you/liberals) would view the administration?

I haven't seen much "hate" for Paul among Republicans. He's dismissed by many as a fringe candidate (which, to be fair, he is), and his views on the war are out of step with the party, but he's not disliked the way Hillary is. I see a lot more "I like Ron Paul, but..." from Republicans than hate.

Baby Lee
08-13-2007, 01:02 PM
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20070812_honeymoon_may_be_over_for_ron_paul/

BucEyedPea
08-13-2007, 01:04 PM
On the other hand, he is Pro-Life

Except how he feels Federal law should deal with this issue is the considered the Constitutional stand and by some the moderate stand. He simply feels it is not a Federal issue but a State one.

Other conservatives that are pro-life want to use the same tactics that the progressive left has used by using their precedent of Federal usurption of the state's jurisdiction on the matter by applying the Bill of Rights ( right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in that order) to the states instead of a murky right to absolute privacy.

and also against progessive taxation. Those don't sit well with most lefties. I've said this before, but I think his policies would eventually result in the corporations which already excercise so much power over our daily lives basically going unchecked and stepping in defacto for the government programs he cut, but without accountability to anyone. For those reasons, I would probably not vote for him unless he is running against Hillary, who I think is probably the biggest corporate tool out there.

True this does not sit well with the left. However, he also does not favor special govt treatment and perks for corporations, especially the military industrial arm which tends to support war. There is a You Tube on Paul mentioning this comfortable arrangement with govt that really gives them so much power that results in giving the market a bad rap when it's caused by this arrangement far more. This results in reduced competition by erecting barriers in the name of the public welfare. Afterall, no can make you buy a Microsoft product or anything else.

Cochise
08-13-2007, 01:11 PM
Edwards probably wants the FAIR Tax in addition to a more progressive income tax! ;)

LMAO

Ah, you're probably right. Raising the existing federal income tax, doubling the capital gains tax, and whatever litany of new taxation would come along with global warming legislation may not be enough.

BucEyedPea
08-13-2007, 01:11 PM
I haven't seen much "hate" for Paul among Republicans. He's dismissed by many as a fringe candidate (which, to be fair, he is), and his views on the war are out of step with the party, but he's not disliked the way Hillary is. I see a lot more "I like Ron Paul, but..." from Republicans than hate.

This is true and false. I wouldn't say this is true for all Pubs but the establishment and many leaders do hate him. In fact some have even run candidates against him, even a Dem and given money to it.

Most of all this is a very sad commentary on what passes for a conservative today when a strict Constitutionalist is called "fringe." That's exactly what the Founders were considered too. Conservatives today are nothing more than Old European style conservatives or Tories.



http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20070812_honeymoon_may_be_over_for_ron_paul/

Aha! I saw that yesterday.
He's still the ONLY candidate that will end the constant pursuit of military solutions around the world until all rogue regimes are replaced with democracies....a utopian endeavor that will destroy America. Even while the Dem leadership plies it's anti war crowd with pork.

BucEyedPea
08-13-2007, 01:13 PM
LMAO

Ah, you're probably right. Raising the existing federal income tax, doubling the capital gains tax, and whatever litany of new taxation would come along with global warming legislation may not be enough.
Seems to me that Edwards simply has a stand for what is currently the usual practice if a Fair Tax is not passed.

banyon
08-13-2007, 01:14 PM
Except how he feels Federal law should deal with this issue is the considered the Constitutional stand and by some the moderate stand. He simply feels it is not a Federal issue but a State one.

Other conservatives that are pro-life want to use the same tactics that the progressive left has used by using their precedent of Federal usurption of the state's jurisdiction on the matter by applying the Bill of Rights ( right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in that order) to the states instead of a murky right to absolute privacy.



True this does not sit well with the left. However, he also does not favor special govt treatment and perks for corporations, especially the military industrial arm which tends to support war. There is a You Tube on Paul mentioning this comfortable arrangement with govt that really gives them so much power that results in giving the market a bad rap when it's caused by this arrangement far more. This results in reduced competition by erecting barriers in the name of the public welfare. Afterall, no can make you buy a Microsoft product or anything else.

Even though I agree about corporate handouts, stopping the handouts isn't enough. Standard Oil and J.P. Morgan didn't need any handouts to tilt everything in their favor.

BucEyedPea
08-13-2007, 01:17 PM
Edwards probably wants the FAIR Tax in addition to a more progressive income tax! ;)
I asked the ED of the Fair Tax if Edwards liking it was a matter of a replacement for an income tax or more a vat-style sales tax. He said no, as a replacement iirc. I didn't talk with him long enough to get all the ins-n-outs when Edward's appears otherwise...but my guess is that there is some omitted information on it that would have it make more sense.

BucEyedPea
08-13-2007, 01:19 PM
Even though I agree about corporate handouts, stopping the handouts isn't enough. Standard Oil and J.P. Morgan didn't need any handouts to tilt everything in their favor.
It goes beyond handouts.
Other than that, Standard Oil's market share was greater after anti-trust legislation. And who was standing behind all those presidents when nafta was passed? Rockefeller.

Pitt Gorilla
08-13-2007, 01:24 PM
Except how he feels Federal law should deal with this issue is the considered the Constitutional stand and by some the moderate stand. He simply feels it is not a Federal issue but a State one.I wish he would have stated that in his terrible Iowa TV spots, but he didn't. That is a very reasonable position, IMO.

BucEyedPea
08-13-2007, 01:26 PM
I wish he would have stated that in his terrible Iowa TV spots, but he didn't. That is a very reasonable position, IMO.
I didn't like that either Pitt.
My guess, is that he wanted to appeal to more RR or Evangelicals based on who else was working the state as a strategy....ya' know Huckabee types. Just a guess though.

wazu
08-13-2007, 11:09 PM
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20070812_honeymoon_may_be_over_for_ron_paul/

I was braced to hate this. The one place Paul sometimes loses me is his fanatical opposition to gun control. I am against gun control, but I think he is quite a bit more so than I am.

But then I listened and it absolutely made sense. What better gun-free victim zone than an airplane? I don't think passengers should be able to carry guns of course, but it seems pretty obvious that having a marshall on board would be a good idea. 9/11 was done using boxcutters.

Politics aside, I also think our planes should be like Air Israel, and not have any access to the cockpit from the rest of the plane.

BucEyedPea
08-13-2007, 11:16 PM
I was braced to hate this. The one place Paul sometimes loses me is his fanatical opposition to gun control. I am against gun control, but I think he is quite a bit more so than I am.

But then I listened and it absolutely made sense. What better gun-free victim zone than an airplane? I don't think passengers should be able to carry guns of course, but it seems pretty obvious that having a marshall on board would be a good idea. 9/11 was done using boxcutters.

Politics aside, I also think our planes should be like Air Israel, and not have any access to the cockpit from the rest of the plane.
I didn't care for that either at first, but I read the other candidates talked up the 2nd Amendment too so that was the audience. It does make sense ...even for the pilots to have a gun.

SNR
08-14-2007, 02:30 AM
That youtube video below is the first I've seen of Ron Paul's angry side. I like it.

StcChief
08-14-2007, 02:31 PM
To a Lib.... Ron Paul... the closet thing to a conservative they would listen to.