It's somewhat unfortunate that racists endorse Ron Paul, but that happens simply because Ron Paul advocates that people should enjoy their own freedom as long as they do not harm others. This appeals to a very wide swath of individuals, both good an bad, both open-minded and close-minded. Also, your photo proves as much about your argument as
this photo of Ron Paul with Rosa Parks proves otherwise. What are your thoughts on the fact that a
Chapter President of the NAACP endorses Ron Paul?
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Sitting with Rosa Parks by no means proves that he stands up against racism, it just means that he has no real values and will pander to anyone. They support him because his lack of government interference would pave the way for the return to segregation laws.
2. Ron Paul wants to eliminate funding for environmental protection, education, and social support, suggesting, as libertarians do, that market forces will take care of these things on their won.
I can understand that, on the surface, these items sound like strange things to cut, but history has shown that they 1) As bureaucracies, they fail under their own weight, 2) Don't actually provide the benefits that they promise, 3) Cost too much money in an era when the country is bankrupt. Free markets and/or moving these items under the power of the states have been shown to have a healthy leveling effect. The problem is that the US has never really had a truly free market, so the historic numbers that people use against free markets are typically flawed. Ideally, the government need only provide minimum regulation and act as a referee for contract law elsewhere.
1) There are problems with administration in both government and corporate affairs. I have seen no end of incompetent administrators in any of the private companies I've worked for. That means we need better oversight, not to abandon the program.
2) Government programs have mixed results, but those positive results that they do have are vital. One of my jobs is to conduct research interviews for various government organizations, including a recent study sponsored by HUD about the Disaster Housing Assistance Program used after hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I've heard from a lot of people who complained that the staff was inefficient as well as many who said that the staff was fine. Again, it's a mixed bag, just like any company. Go to 2 gas stations owned by the same company and you'll get different levels of customer service, go to 2 different case workers and you'll get different levels of interaction and care. Humans aren't uniform. The point is, despite any issues with case workers, the vast majority of people I talk to say that the actual help provided by the program was very helpful to their ability to get back on their feet after the hurricanes. Even the people who had the most to say about how DHAP could be improved upon. Now, mind you, HUD commissioned this study because they actually care about what people have to say and want to make sure they can do an even better job next time around. Where do market forces come into play in a situation like this? How does the profit motive fuel disaster recovery? How does it fuel economic stability for the lower classes?
I've also been a foodstamp recipient while also working, and I'll tell you what, they greatly improved my lifestyle. There are other people who are less well off than me who need them even more, and others who can't work at all who need additional help. Things are already heavily balanced in favor of the rich at the expense of the poor, we need something to counterbalance their power. That something is a federal government with regulatory powers and the ability to tax and provide services. Unfortunately ours is tangled up with lobbyists at the moment, but we need to fix that, not strip the government of its power.
3) Social welfare programs aren't actually all that costly when compared to things like prison or military spending, and they're vital.
Ron Paul's stance is that no dollars should be left in a slush fund and that all dollars should be earmarked by congress. Aside, this complaint of Ron Paul is like complaining that someone who prefers lower taxes also files for a legitimate tax refund at the end of the year.
No, it's not. Spending in his district isn't just normal, like a legitimate tax refund, it's *more than everybody else's*. Earmarking every single dollar not only makes it harder to react to unexpected circumstances, but it slows things down too.
4. Ron Paul believes in a theocratic vision of the United States, in which religion is allowed to interfere with public affairs.
I don't believe this to be true. Do you have some resources to back this statement up? Any videos where Ron Paul has stated such rhetoric? Furthermore, to put things in context, you're debating with two people who agree that church and state must be separate.
He's stated that he believes the United States to be a Christian nation, and he's stated that he believes in the rights of the states to teach what they like in schools.
Does he want to end the war on terror and the war on drugs? Sure, but it doesn't make up for all the crazy.
The two items that you seem to agree with are also two if our biggest issues in the country today. The spending is outrageous, and the country is on the brink of collapse because of it.
It's not just because of that, it's because the economy is deregulated and trickle-down is bullshit. We've had 30 years of Reaganomics on top of these wars we can't afford.
I can understand that you might not agree with 100% of a person's policies, but we all have to prioritize the issues and make the best decision we can.
It's not that I don't agree with 100% of his politics, it's that I agree with 2% of his politics. Before the primaries I considered Ron Paul to be the most dangerous possible Republican front-runner. Happily they're left with a Mormon and a clown now, so I don't see any remote threats to Obama's second term.
