PDA

View Full Version : A Real Plan: Dr. Ron Paul's 11 point plan


Obushma
09-27-2011, 09:05 AM
Dr. Ron Paul's 11-Point Plan That Could Save America
Laura Trice
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-trice/ron-paul-11-point-plan_b_947832.html

Have Americans read Dr. Ron Paul's written plan for the country? Are Americans ready to upset the apple cart in a controlled and methodical way for the betterment of the greater good? The main source I am referencing here is Dr. Ron Paul's website, so that we can debate his priorities and proposed approaches. I have paraphrased items from his site; however, I encourage the reader to thoroughly review all the links.

Here is Dr. Ron Paul's 11-point plan:

11. Energy Independence: Eliminate the federal gas tax of $0.18 per gallon and eliminate the EPA, allowing prosecution of polluters to answer to citizens, not Washington, and allowing coal, oil, nuclear and other forms of energy to be safely explored.

10. Education: Dr. Paul would like to see the U.S. Department of Education return its powers to the states and parents. He proposes and intends to give parents a $5,000 tax credit per child for kids K-12 to help with all the costs of education. He is supportive of home-schooling and will veto legislation that interferes with parents choosing to home-school their children.

9. Workers' Rights: Dr. Ron Paul is against forcing workers to join unions and pay dues if they do not want to, citing the $8 billion that union leaders bring in annually that is often given to political candidates. He does not want workers forced to belong to unions or to be under union control against their will.

8. Protect Gun Rights: Protecting the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. Here is an example of a town that required each head of household to own a gun. This policy resulted in decreased crime.

7. Heath Care: Dr. Ron Paul will repeal Obamacare, allow for tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses and not allow money that belongs in Medicare or Medicaid to be misused for other purposes. He will protect the privacy of American citizens' medical records from the federal government, remove barriers for all citizens to have HSAs and keep the FDA out of vitamins and alternative treatments. Also, he wants to provide payroll deductions for terminal illnesses and caregivers.

6. Pro-Life Issue: Here is the one fact all Americans need to know. Dr. Paul is the only Republican candidate who has said, "So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid." Abortion is one of the most divisive issues and may always be a divisive issue as long as Americans have freedom of religion and the right to be, think and feel differently. Dr. Ron Paul may be personally pro-life; however, his voting record indicates that, even if a bill attempting to make abortion illegal federally in the U.S. were passed by the House and Senate, Dr. Paul would veto the bill as unconstitutional. Which other Republican candidate has a track record to indicate that? Would Dr. Paul look to put pro-life judges on the Supreme Court bench? Probably as much as past Republican presidents. The current Democratic President has recently placed two women on the Supreme Court, and new Justices are appointed only when a Justice dies or retires. Six Republican Presidential candidates have already signed the Susan B. Anthony List 2012. Dr. Ron Paul is the safest Republican candidate because he would veto anti-abortion bills at the federal level and support states that chose to protect women's reproductive rights. His other strong Constitution-based reforms outweigh the small risk that Roe v. Wade would be overturned during his term, returning the power to the states, who can then protect women's reproductive rights, as Vermont has. Would he truly respect the states' rights on this, considering his strong personal stand? Many progressive states have anti-abortion laws on their books that are not enforceable due to Roe v. Wade. So far, Dr. Paul has written bills to make it possible for states to make abortion illegal in the Sanctity of Life bill. He wrote the We the People Act, which, if passed, would render Roe v. Wade invalid and return powers to the states. He signed the Susan B. Anthony list, which describes federally defunding all abortions and Planned Parenthood. If Dr. Paul can fix the economic mess, is the slight chance that Roe v. Wade would be rendered invalid something Americans are willing risk for the betterment of the country in many other important areas? We will not ever go back to a time before birth control, morning-after pills, RU 486, the Internet and other advancements. Certain states, even with Roe v. Wade, are extremely restrictive.

5. Immigration: In Dr. Paul's own words:

Immigration reform should start with improving our border protection, yet it was reported last week that the federal government has approved the recruitment of 120 of our best trained Border Patrol agents to go to Iraq to train Iraqis how to better defend their borders! This comes at a time when the National Guard troops participating in Operation Jump Start are being removed from border protection duties in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas and preparing to deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan! It is an outrage and it will result in our borders being more vulnerable to illegal entry, including by terrorists.
Also, we need to take serious steps to prevent terrorists from gaining easy access to targets on our soil. Quite alarmingly, even with the knowledge that the 19 terrorist hijackers entered our country legally, and that 15 of them were from Saudi Arabia , student visas from terrorist sponsoring countries are still far too easily obtained. In a baffling move President Bush struck a deal with Saudi King Abdullah in 2005 to allow 21,000 more Saudi young men into the US on student Visas. Of course, not all students from terror sponsoring countries are terrorists, but I place a higher premium on the security of the American people than the convenience of citizens of hostile countries. We should not be making the goals of would-be terrorists easier to accomplish, but rather should be vigilant about defending against enemies at every turn. They should not be slipping through our doors so easily, using our immigration laws against us, and that is why I proposed the Terror Immigration Elimination Act (HR 3217) to toughen standards for VISAS from countries on the State Department's list of terrorist sponsoring countries in addition to Saudi Arabia . Just as you decide who to invite to a dinner party in your home, we should be in charge of who we allow in this country, without apology.
Also:

Both the Bush administration and congressional leadership have promised to spend the next two months addressing national security issues. But real national security cannot be achieved unless and until our borders are physically secured. It's as simple as that. All the talk about fighting terror and making America safer is meaningless without border security. It makes no sense to seek terrorists abroad if our own front door is left unlocked.
In short, Dr. Paul's plan is to secure the border, end amnesty, abolish welfare to illegal immigrants, end birthright citizenship and protect lawful immigrants.

4. National Defense: Dr. Paul's approach is simple. He believes in a strong national defense and is against militarism -- in other words, protect the U.S. but do not police the world and require congressional approval before declaring war. The last time the U.S. formally declared war was World War II in 1941. Dr. Paul would bring the troops home to protect America. Dr. Paul said he would get the troops home as soon as the ships would get here. He is the largest recipient of donations from soldiers in the U.S. military, getting 71 percent of all military donations.

3. Taxes: Dr. Paul would support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that abolishes income and death taxes. Ideally, he'd like to close the IRS. He would seek to repeal capital gains taxes and reduce then abolish taxes on Social Security. Before a flat or fair tax would be implemented, Dr. Paul would ensure that the 16th Amendment, which made income taxation legal, would be repealed so we don't end up with both.

2. End the Fed: The Fed was created in a time of turmoil and seems similar to the Patriot Act in that it was done from a position of hysteria, not logical and rational decision-making. The U.S. Constitution is considered such a well thought-through document as it was drafted in a time of peace rather than as a reaction to a panic. Documents and policies that are reviewed and seen in the light of day by calm, rational people tend to be better for the long-term wellness of the people than policies passed quickly in an emotional, reactive and hurried manner. Dr. Paul equates the Fed with deeply-in-debt parents sending their teenagers out with credit cards and blank checks. Dr. Paul's ultimate goal would be to see the Fed end, yet he would not act rashly. What his focus would be is a full and complete audit of the Fed, as Congress is currently unable to audit the Fed. Dr. Paul would commit to passing legislation that requires transparency and accountability from the Fed. At this time, the Fed can keep secret to whom they are lending trillions of taxpayers' dollars. If the Fed is handling American money responsibly, for what reason would they refuse to open their books? We American citizens are all subject to audits from the IRS, but the U.S. central bank is not? Please take three minutes to watch this amazing video of Bernie Sanders asking Ben Bernanke, where $2.2 trillion of taxpayer money is. Bernanke will not answer the question and will not disclose where $2.2 trillion went, and he doesn't have to.

1. Economy: Dr. Paul's plan is to audit the Fed, veto any unbalanced budget and refuse to raise the debt ceiling. He is also committed to getting rid of self-dealing and corruption in D.C. Additionally, he will eliminate income taxes, capital gains taxes and death taxes. It would be a breath of fresh air to have the Fed audited and wasteful government spending eliminated, and to actually be able to keep more of the money we make. America's debt did not come out of nowhere. In 2008, the U.S. had spent $3 trillion on the war in Iraq. The current costs are at $3.2 to $4 trillion. How much did we vote to increase the debt ceiling? We raised the $14.3-trillion debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion, to $16.7 trillion on Aug. 2, 2011. Here is a great 10-minute video with Dr. Paul clearly stating how, if elected president in 2012, he would balance the budget in one year.

In this discussion, I request that emotional reactions and sarcasm be set aside. The goal is an accurate, clear and truthful dialogue. We are blessed with a group of knowledgeable Americans making comments here. What I want to suggest is that we discuss what is best for the greater good for our country, not just for ourselves.

Any presidential choice we make involves a risk. Is he lying and manipulating to win the election, or is he honest? Will she serve American citizens ethically and honorably as president? The U.S. Constitution was created to unite the states in our country in certain crucial areas, like national defense, while allowing states their autonomy and uniqueness. In the spirit of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, good character is the most essential quality to bring to our government. Dr. Paul combines solid character and backbone with seasoned wisdom and experience. He has not compromised the values and principles that America holds dear.

alkemical
09-27-2011, 09:24 AM
IMO, I think he should back off the "end the fed" - and start with strong "regulations" on the FedReserve. Start by making all the info public.

That's just my POV on how he'd gain more traction. It has to be understood that it needs baby steps. If he could get into office and somehow get the FedReserve information under FOIA/Open, I think that'd be a major win.

I like Ron Paul - I voted for him twice before. The deck is stack against him IMO.

Mr.Meanie
09-27-2011, 09:33 AM
I like a lot of the suggestions, but I absolutely hate the idea of ending the EPA, and the idea of a flat tax scares me. I think no one knows what the unintended consequences would be of both of these things.

I also don't think any of these things would gain traction if he were president. Obama introduced a number of bills that were pretty strictly down the middle, while having a majority in congress, and still had an extremely difficult time getting anything passed. Paul would upset both sides on many of these issues... which is why he doesn't have a shot in hell at getting the nomination, IMO.

Rohirrim
09-27-2011, 10:45 AM
11. Energy Independence: Eliminate the federal gas tax of $0.18 per gallon and eliminate the EPA, allowing prosecution of polluters to answer to citizens, not Washington, and allowing coal, oil, nuclear and other forms of energy to be safely explored.
The Koch Bros (and their buddies in the energy industry) would love nothing more than to kill the EPA. They've been trying to do that by buying government lackies to defund it for years. EPA goes and they can pump **** into the environment at will. Is some community going to sue them? How long did it take to get a decision on the Valdez spill? Go here and read that joke of a case. ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill
Interestingly enough, Chase designed the first credit default swap to protect themselves from covering Exxon's losses. The case is still going on and the oil is still permeating the ground along the shore. You think some community of citizens is going to have a snowball's chance against these guys? Laughable. With no EPA it would be a sound business decision for the energy industry to just pollute their asses off and hire lawyers to fight cases for decades. And dropping the gas tax? All that does is make people drive more. Pure stupid.

10. Education: Dr. Paul would like to see the U.S. Department of Education return its powers to the states and parents. He proposes and intends to give parents a $5,000 tax credit per child for kids K-12 to help with all the costs of education. He is supportive of home-schooling and will veto legislation that interferes with parents choosing to home-school their children.
Education in the modern world is a national security issue. It will decide our future as a nation. And we want to turn that over to home schooling? Ha! Home schooling is nothing more than code language for religious indoctrination. I am a well educated and well read person, but would I trust myself to school my own children all the way through higher mathematics and science (the two educational issues endangering us the most right now)? No. Plus, most households (including my own) require both parents to work. Who's going to school the kids? TV? Education is a national issue, not a states issue. We need to stem the tide against the excesses of the teachers union, and we also need to reform many things about our system (ie, the lion's share of funding going to administrators), but Paul's ideas take a bad system and turn it into a shambles.

9. Workers' Rights: Dr. Ron Paul is against forcing workers to join unions and pay dues if they do not want to, citing the $8 billion that union leaders bring in annually that is often given to political candidates. He does not want workers forced to belong to unions or to be under union control against their will.
I'm sure he has no problem with corporations using $8 billion to support corporate political issues. Unions exist to protect workers' rights. So, they shouldn't be allowed the same monetary voice at the table that corporations now enjoy (tenfold more than unions)? If you think this is the last card the Right intends to play, you're kidding yourself. Unions are almost defeated in America. When they are finally dead, as Paul's ideas clearly intend, he won't have to worry about workers' rights. There will be none. Refer to #11. Same thing. Unions can speak up for workers because they have economic power. Starve their economic power and those voices are stilled. Why do you think corporations wanted Citizens United, so they could have less influence on our politics?
8. Protect Gun Rights: Protecting the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. Here is an example of a town that required each head of household to own a gun. This policy resulted in decreased crime.
Unfortunately, the American people are a very violent people. Can we alter that by changing gun laws? Doubtful. Personally, I don't know why I am not allowed to have a 50 caliber machine gun. I would like one, but the government says I can't. I can't even have a fully auto AK, like the people we are protecting in Afghanistan. Doesn't make sense, does it?

7. Heath Care: Dr. Ron Paul will repeal Obamacare, allow for tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses and not allow money that belongs in Medicare or Medicaid to be misused for other purposes. He will protect the privacy of American citizens' medical records from the federal government, remove barriers for all citizens to have HSAs and keep the FDA out of vitamins and alternative treatments. Also, he wants to provide payroll deductions for terminal illnesses and caregivers.
The only thing that will repair our out of control health care disaster is to make it a universal, single payer system. We'll fight about it for years because the insurance industry has lots of money to throw around Washington, but someday, we'll wake up to reality. We also have to disconnect Big Pharma from the FDA (good luck with that one). They are polluting the system, and our bodies. I just read a piece where some physicians are wondering if ADHD simply rose out of the fact that we removed physical education from schools. No recesses. No play time. Kids sitting on their asses for six hours a day in a classroom? We can't afford to give our kids recess but we can afford hundreds of millions in Ritalin? Thanks, Big Pharma. BTW, your health care insurance is going up another 9%. Enjoy.

6. Pro-Life Issue:
I oppose abortion but don't believe it's an issue that government should involve itself in. My stance is that, as a society, we should publicly disapprove of abortion, but not turn it into another War on Drugs kind of thing. Roe v. Wade was a real stretch of the Constitution that should be overturned. Like Citizens United, it found precedence where none existed. Women should be told that we (science) don't know when life begins and that they are making a life and death choice. Leave it to the states.

5. Immigration: In Dr. Paul's own words:

In short, Dr. Paul's plan is to secure the border, end amnesty, abolish welfare to illegal immigrants, end birthright citizenship and protect lawful immigrants.
I agree.

4. National Defense: Dr. Paul's approach is simple. He believes in a strong national defense and is against militarism -- in other words, protect the U.S. but do not police the world and require congressional approval before declaring war. The last time the U.S. formally declared war was World War II in 1941. Dr. Paul would bring the troops home to protect America. Dr. Paul said he would get the troops home as soon as the ships would get here. He is the largest recipient of donations from soldiers in the U.S. military, getting 71 percent of all military donations.
I agree.

3. Taxes: Dr. Paul would support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that abolishes income and death taxes. Ideally, he'd like to close the IRS. He would seek to repeal capital gains taxes and reduce then abolish taxes on Social Security. Before a flat or fair tax would be implemented, Dr. Paul would ensure that the 16th Amendment, which made income taxation legal, would be repealed so we don't end up with both.
I believe in the pragmatic efficacy of a well designed progressive tax system. It solves the question that any modern society must tackle (how to control the excessive accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few while strongly supporting a middle class) without resorting to ideological dogma to do it. No society that hopes for stability will last long without solving that issue, as history proves again and again. Capital gains taxes should be no different than income taxes. Why does a man who earns his money by the sweat of his brow get taxed more than a guy whose money makes him money while he sleeps? That's bull****. Estate tax should be strengthened and toughened for all the reasons that T. Jefferson gave. The flat tax is regressive. It penalizes the poor far more than the wealthy. Libertarian tax policy is basically, let the rich and powerful run free and they'll be nice to the rest of us once they've amassed all the wealth and power. History shows such an idea to be laughable.

2. End the Fed: The Fed was created in a time of turmoil and seems similar to the Patriot Act in that it was done from a position of hysteria, not logical and rational decision-making. The U.S. Constitution is considered such a well thought-through document as it was drafted in a time of peace rather than as a reaction to a panic. Documents and policies that are reviewed and seen in the light of day by calm, rational people tend to be better for the long-term wellness of the people than policies passed quickly in an emotional, reactive and hurried manner. Dr. Paul equates the Fed with deeply-in-debt parents sending their teenagers out with credit cards and blank checks. Dr. Paul's ultimate goal would be to see the Fed end, yet he would not act rashly. What his focus would be is a full and complete audit of the Fed, as Congress is currently unable to audit the Fed. Dr. Paul would commit to passing legislation that requires transparency and accountability from the Fed. At this time, the Fed can keep secret to whom they are lending trillions of taxpayers' dollars. If the Fed is handling American money responsibly, for what reason would they refuse to open their books? We American citizens are all subject to audits from the IRS, but the U.S. central bank is not? Please take three minutes to watch this amazing video of Bernie Sanders asking Ben Bernanke, where $2.2 trillion of taxpayer money is. Bernanke will not answer the question and will not disclose where $2.2 trillion went, and he doesn't have to.
The Fed should be audited. When talking about controlling the Fed, one should take into account that it is the Congress (the most unfavorably polling entity in America) that would be doing the job. You really want this partisan, chicken coop full of chicken ****s taking control of our monetary issues? Talk about a cluster ****. One of the reasons that the Euro is going through such turmoil right now is that they didn't create a central bank, instead relying on national banks to settle currency issues. That's working well for them, don't you think? What we need is a new way of looking at economics. I suggest this: http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=99934

1. Economy: Dr. Paul's plan is to audit the Fed, veto any unbalanced budget and refuse to raise the debt ceiling. He is also committed to getting rid of self-dealing and corruption in D.C. Additionally, he will eliminate income taxes, capital gains taxes and death taxes. It would be a breath of fresh air to have the Fed audited and wasteful government spending eliminated, and to actually be able to keep more of the money we make. America's debt did not come out of nowhere. In 2008, the U.S. had spent $3 trillion on the war in Iraq. The current costs are at $3.2 to $4 trillion. How much did we vote to increase the debt ceiling? We raised the $14.3-trillion debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion, to $16.7 trillion on Aug. 2, 2011. Here is a great 10-minute video with Dr. Paul clearly stating how, if elected president in 2012, he would balance the budget in one year.
We won't solve these issues until we get the money out of politics. The first issue on the table is campaign financing laws. Write an amendment to the Constitution overturning Citizens United and encoding in our law that corporations are not people. Like Jesus in the temple, we must flush the money changers out of the halls of government. Only then, will the voices of the people begin to find some reflection in our policies. Right now , if 70% of the people wanted something (take immigration control, for example) and the corporate lobbyists didn't want it, guess who wins the policy argument? Besides that, what does Paul consider "...wasteful government spending?" I'd like to see his list. All politicians are opposed to wasteful government spending, except in their own districts. There's the rub.

mhgaffney
09-27-2011, 10:58 AM
IMO, I think he should back off the "end the fed" - and start with strong "regulations" on the FedReserve. Start by making all the info public.

That's just my POV on how he'd gain more traction. It has to be understood that it needs baby steps. If he could get into office and somehow get the FedReserve information under FOIA/Open, I think that'd be a major win.

I like Ron Paul - I voted for him twice before. The deck is stack against him IMO.

Wrong. There is no middle way on this. Any "baby steps" will be controlled by the bankers. They have the $$$ to defeat reforms.

Reform will not work. The answer is abolition. Think Andrew Jackson.

mhgaffney
09-27-2011, 11:04 AM
Ro lives in fantasyland.

He has a two second attention span. He forgets that the Supreme Court recently elevated corporations to the status of people - with none of the responsibilities. Corporations can now legally give unlimited amounts of cash in support of a candidate. This makes a mockery of campaign finance reform.

Only a ground swell of angry citizens can reverse the current trends.

We need transparency. If the people knew how corrupt the system is --they would rise up. Which is why the abolish the fed plank is at the top of RP's platform.

He is the only candidate talking truth.

Rohirrim
09-27-2011, 11:08 AM
Ro lives in fantasyland.

He has a two second attention span. He forgets that the Supreme Court recently elevated corporations to the status of people - with none of the responsibilities. Corporations can now legally give unlimited amounts of cash in support of a candidate. This makes a mockery of campaign finance reform.

Only a ground swell of angry citizens can reverse the current trends.

We need transparency. If the people knew how corrupt the system is --they would rise up. Which is why the abolish the fed plank is at the top of RP's platform.

He is the only candidate talking truth.

Once again, Gaffo doesn't read the post but comments anyway. Such is egotism.

Obushma
09-28-2011, 08:12 AM
The Koch Bros (and their buddies in the energy industry) would love nothing more than to kill the EPA. They've been trying to do that by buying government lackies to defund it for years. EPA goes and they can pump **** into the environment at will. Is some community going to sue them? How long did it take to get a decision on the Valdez spill? Go here and read that joke of a case. ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill
Interestingly enough, Chase designed the first credit default swap to protect themselves from covering Exxon's losses. The case is still going on and the oil is still permeating the ground along the shore. You think some community of citizens is going to have a snowball's chance against these guys? Laughable. With no EPA it would be a sound business decision for the energy industry to just pollute their asses off and hire lawyers to fight cases for decades. And dropping the gas tax? All that does is make people drive more. Pure stupid.


Ro, you realize that the EPA was created by corporations because how many citizens were suing them durring the industrial revolution, right? Now, the EPA regulates how many pollutants corporations can put in the air, and the corporations have no liability to the people as long as they are within EPA regulations. You've got to be narrow minded if you cant see that its easy for the EPA to be bought off by big corp. You liberals amaze me, almost as short sighted as your neocon brothers.

alkemical
09-28-2011, 08:29 AM
I like clean air & water - and I don't trust "Corporate" to operate in "my" best interest.

Rohirrim
09-28-2011, 08:57 AM
Ro, you realize that the EPA was created by corporations because how many citizens were suing them durring the industrial revolution, right? Now, the EPA regulates how many pollutants corporations can put in the air, and the corporations have no liability to the people as long as they are within EPA regulations. You've got to be narrow minded if you cant see that its easy for the EPA to be bought off by big corp. You liberals amaze me, almost as short sighted as your neocon brothers.

Since the entire government is bought off right now it's no surprise that the EPA has also been infiltrated by bought off politicians and turned into a political football. Ron Paul's solution is: If the kitchen is dirty, burn down the house. The entire U.S. government needs to be swept clean of uncontrolled corporate influence. Getting rid of the EPA would be like punishing a shoplifter by letting him keep the stuff he stole and giving him coupons for the next time he goes shopping. BTW, the EPA was begun by Nixon and had nothing to do with the industrial revolution and much more to do with the angry demand of Americans in 1970 to stop corporations from dumping on the environment. Corporations have been trying to defund and destroy it ever since, with the willing assistance of most Republicans. Their most successful attack was when they were able to replace scientists with corporate political toadies.

Here's the problem with ideologues (like libertarians). They believe that if you can just implement their idealized system, it will cure human fallibility. It won't. There are human beings who bathe in greed and corruption. The minute you make one law, they will hire a lawyer to figure out a way around it. The Founders understood that. That's why they separated the powers of government into thirds with no power dominant. The only way a society protects itself is through laws and constant vigilance, not utopian idealized systems.