he also wants to get rid of the fda, the irs and he has spoken many times in the past about privatizing education, making healthcare even more privatized, and is a known racist (fleet footed, the blacks, let's kick all those goddamn mexicans out i don't care if 5% die etc)
Well, except for the racist part, this is true, but for good reasons:
FDA: FDA regulations prevent new drugs and medical devices from entering the market for years at a time, and at costs in the hundreds of millions. In the case of drugs or medical devices needed to treat life threatening conditions, many people with life threatening conditions have died waiting for their treatment to receive FDA approval. The regulations also act as a market entry barrier discourages new competitors from entering the market. The high complaince cost and lack of competition are partly to blame for the astronomical cost of drugs and healthcare coverage. And to add insult to injury, many drugs with harmful effects still make it to market despite all these sacrifices made to ensure there safety.
It is possible that through a combination of voluntary complaince measures, consumer information services, liability, and market competition that drug safety could still be ensured but without the huge cost, delays in life saving treatments and other problems that the FDA causes.
IRS: Ron Paul wants to reduce the size and scale of the government to the point were Federal Income taxes are no longer necessary to maintain it. Once this occurs, the IRS can go.
Healthcare: While there has been a push of place the Federal government in control of funding healthcare, many of us would like to see the Federal government out of healthcare. If anything, the Federal government has proven itself completely incompetent in matters of financing, wallowing in debt and unable to properly fund all of its current responsibilites. That last thing we need is something as critical as our health dependent on the government's ability to properly finance its obligations. Furthermore, one of the key problems with our health care system is rising health care cost. A universal payer system will create a buffer in which our tax money is first pooled together for all Federal expenses and then distributed back to the health care system, which will effectively hide the cost from the taxpayer(especially because it is likely to be covered with borrowed money) but has no guarantee in actually reducing the cost or fixing the problem.
Rather, what we should do is put health care money back in the hands of individual people. Right now, the money used to pay for health care is twice removed from their control. There health care is payed for by their insurance company, which is in turn payed for by their employer, by money would otherwise be received by and under direct control of the individual. The status quo is maintained because of tax benefits that can only be obtained through employer health coverage and the fact that many employers of forced to provide HMO coverage thansk to Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. Note that there has been a steady rise in health care prices since the passage of the HMO Act and the establishment of our current healthcare structure, so changing these circumstance might actually result in lower health care cost. Ways to circumvent this situation include providing the same tax benefits to employes who personally pay for their health care and the establishment of Health Savings Accounts as an alternative to HMOs.
Racism: Ron Paul is not a racist as far as I know. He is construed to be a racist by some by taking individual events or positions well out of context.
But i guess since he wants to get rid of the patriot act and get us out of iraq (hint: Obama and the awful hilary clinton want to as well and aren't fucking crazy and don't think we should destroy any chance for the poor in this country to have meaningful education or healthcare.)
Well lets see:
Obama: Obama might actually achieve one or both of these goals. However, I am uncertain if I will actually stand against these because he was not in Congress when the original Patriot Acts was passed, nor was he in Congress when Congress authorized military action in Iraq. Furthermore, he did reauthorize the Patriot Act in 2006.
Clinton: She was in office during the original Patriot Act and Iraqi war authorization, so I know EXACTLY where she stands: Voted to Authorize the War in Iraq, Voted on the Original Patriot Acts, and Voted to Reauthorize the Patriot Act in 2006. And I have yet to see her take a strong position against the Patriot Act in her campaign, and her position on Iraq is unclear. So no, she is not an option for ending things like the Patriot Act.
But go ahead and spout off about civil liberties and how he will tape the constitution back together when the man will be taking REAL civil liberties away: People's ability to live a decent life.
I haven't even mentioned the War on Drugs, Asset Forfeiture, or the Kelo decision yet. That fact is, Paul will not be taking away any civil liberties, and I think our lives will be much better when he gets rid of all these civil liberty violations.
Gaming World Forums
ron paul raises 3.5 million in less than a day