To the Ron Paul Supporters... [Paul]

[sunken]

I see a lot of people that say they are voting for Ron Paul, but what exactly is the tipping scale for you? His foreign policy? His out of the mainstream Washington talk? What makes him the best choice? What concerns me is that it seems that although he has some interesting ideas, that they aren't well thought out in terms of whether they could actually be done and what would be the consequences. For instance, if the country could return to the gold standard, how would that be done and at what cost?

I'm trying to keep an open mind in this election and not just take up one person. Actually I've switched several times, so I guess I'm as yet undecided. I just know who I don't want to see in the White House. That list is mainly McCain, Guiliani and Huckabee. I'm still considering Romney.

[Jed K]

I'm a bit curious as well as to what all the Ron Paul supporters seem to see in him that's so great. I do agree that he has some interesting ideas, but as stated, many don't seem completely thought out/etc.

I suppose it doesn't really matter as he's very unlikely to get the Republican nomination anyhow, but I'm just curious.

[Mike_115]

Most of his ideas are actually libertarian, but old school republican thought was close to libertarianism anyway. He actually has plans for implementation of his policies, and they are more thought out than he has time to talk about in the debates. While most of the candidates are only suggesting minor if any change, he wants broad sweeping change, and you can't explain the nuances in 30 seconds. If you actually picked one issue and talked to him about it for as long as it took to explain I'm confident that he could defend it.

I actually support 99% of his ideas. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan are really the only areas that the president has direct control over, everything else would have to be worked out through congress, and would take longer. As for the gold standard he wants to legalize and encourage competing currencies so you could pay for your groceries in gold or dollars. I'm not sure how smooth that transition would be, but the goal would be relinking the dollar to gold or silver. Besides the bureaucratic nightmare I don't see why we couldn't just relink it, however, with a very small amount of gold per dollar. For getting rid of Social Security and Medicare he wants to support the people that currently rely on it, but let younger people opt out and take care of them selfs, in reality it won't be there for us anyway.

I also feel that every four years we vote for the lesser of two evils, and they really aren't that different, and we wonder why the country keeps heading in the same direction. I've heard that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. So we keep voting Democrat and Republican and somehow expect that things will be different this time, that somehow it will get better. Big government is the source of not the solution to 99% of our problems. All any of the other candidates want to do is create even more big government. Ron Paul is the only candidate in the main parties that actually addresses that. I'm sure some of his support is from people who really only support him because he advocates real change.

If there is any specific position you want to know more about ask, and I'll try to explain why and how.

[sunken]

Thanks for your insight. Your reply, however, symbolizes what bothers me most about Ron Paul. Sweeping changes, even with the best intentions and ideas, can cause chaos within the public. When I said earlier that it seems that he hasn't thought these things through, I didn't mean that he didn't have a plan to implement them. What I meant was he doesn't seem to factor in human nature and how people would react to such changes.

His idea for the gold standard, for instance, would bring the economy to it's knees as companies would be forced to pay for expensive conversions under the law. Not only that, but consumers would then be thrust into a system that they are unfamiliar with. Prices at WalMart would be like $40, 23G or 37S, all on one tag. Some people can't make change now, much less when the exchange rate would have to be taken into consideration. Also the volatile rise and fall of the gold's value would have to be taken into consideration, changing prices every day so that the store doesn't lose money, much like oil does.

The other thing I've noticed in my further research of his ideas is that he seems to believe that America can return to the policies of the late 1800's and still function in today's world. Much has changed in the last century and we have positioned ourselves where going back to the isolation of long ago just isn't practical. Sure, in theory it would be great to disconnect from all of our obligations around the world. It would certainly save a ton of money. It would also create great problems and leave us vulnerable in the global neighborhood that is now in play.

I think people do want change, but they want it to be slow and deliberate and not a complete rehaul of their lives and their government. From what I've heard, the phrase, "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it" comes to mind when I listen to him. While his ideas may be sound on paper, they have big problems in the human response that can't be counted on to work out a specific way.

[Mike_115]

"Also the volatile rise and fall of the gold's value would have to be taken into consideration, changing prices every day so that the store doesn't lose money, much like oil does."

I think gold would be more stable than dollars (gas costs the same in gold and silver as it has for years while jumping astronomically in terms of dollars), but I can't guarantee that. I agree that a lot of fast change could cause chaos, however, change that drastic can't happen that fast, and would be eased into. Ultimately I think realistically the most he could do is bring our troops home, and start to work towards his other goals. But we have to work towards those goals, instead of farther down the path to economic an militaristic collapse. We are heading towards disaster, and I'll risk some societal chaos over complete collapse, and loss of more civil liberties.

[Taopoet]

Oh dear. I've just spent some time at http://www.ronpaul2008.com, and I'm perplexed. Let's consider just two issues for the moment: Health Care and Taxes

He clearly supports government heath care for veterans (only), while insisting that health care for civilians should be an out-of-pocket expense. I fail to understand this. I further fail to understand how the very civilians who suffer without heath insurance (those, he says, too poor and under-employed to afford it, so they overtax emergency rooms for routine care) will benefit from making out-of-pocket medical expenses tax deductible. People who are poor and under-employed cannot itemize their deductions. Believe me, there have been years when I've tried.

Furthermore, how will those same people, many of whom must routinely choose between shoes for their children and bread for their children's sandwiches, be able to set up the medical savings accounts Mr. Paul proposes? When you're living paycheck-to-paycheck (as I have), the mere thought of setting aside 10 dollars a week is impossible to manage, much less the thousands a year it takes to support adequate health care.

He also clearly supports eliminating income tax on workers who earn much of their wages in tips. Yet he says nothing (unless you include the buried 2003 report I reference below) about eliminating income tax on workers who earn their wages from an hourly rate. Clearly, this is not fair. I was a waitress for several years in a border state where we had a great deal of Canadian clientele. In Canada, it's traditional to tip $2, as Canadian waitstaff earn an actual living wage. Our restaurant was routinely audited for low tip reportings, but we never had any trouble because the auditors were easily convinced of the truth of the matter. That's all they were looking for: The truth of the matter. The sad fact is that the draconian measures the IRS places upon tip earners is in response to rampant tax evasion by tip earners.

In 2003, Congressman Paul wrote a statement supporting the abolition of Income Tax. Please tell me, supporters, how do tax deductible medical expenses work if there's no income tax from which to deduct them?

I've now mentioned twice that I was once among the poor. I deeply thank Clinton-era social welfare programs for giving me the boost I needed to rise from poverty and become a solidly middle class tax payer. I can only hope some of my tax dollars will be diverted away from the industrial military complex and into programs that will help people in my former situation become people in my current situation.

Thank you.

[Mike_115]

I'll do my best to answer for the good doctor, though I'm sure he could do better (I might be completely off base on some of his reasons). He supports health care for veterans to repay then for their service, especially in regards to issues that result from their service. Having health care in general be an out of pocket expense serves to drive the cost down. In every area free markets drive prices to their lowest possible point. Laser eye surgery is going down in price while the rest of health care goes up. This is mainly caused by the fact that insurance companies won't pay for it. When you go to the doctor you don't care if the treatment costs $50 or $100 because you pay a $10 copay (assuming you have insurance). This is muddying the water a bit because we are talking insurance not government, but imagine what happens with a single giant insurance company.

On the tax issue you have to separate his ultimate goal from the interim ones. He wants to eliminate the income tax entirely, however, in the mean time he wants to ease the burden on the poorest. Hence eliminating tax on tips. Once again health care deductions from the income tax is a temporary fix on the road to getting rid of it entirely. If you get rid of it entirely that's a bigger deduction than you would get with an income tax and health care deductions.

[sunken]

The veterinarian industry does not have insurance for the most part and yet a single visit for your pet can run into $250 or more and thousands if it's a chronic problem or illness. When you rush Fluffy to the vet hospital, are you going to negotiate with the doctor over the treatment price? "Well, I know his leg is run over, but can't you just glue it back together for $5? That's all I have." A lot of times, pets don't get the help they need because their owners can't afford it.

So I fail to see how this would be any different in the world of human medicine. There are many factors that go into the high prices besides what insurance companies will pay. The cost of training, running offices, medical equipment, hospital residency fees, malpractice insurance and lawsuits, all add up. This won't change if insurance is gotten rid of. Sure it might go down some, but would it be sufficient enough to allow health care for everyone? Doubtful.

Laser surgery is an elective procedure. No one is forcing anyone to do it. So if it's too expensive, you just stick to glasses or contacts. So the fact that it's gone down is not indicative of what would happen without insurance.

The bottom line is that health care is often not a choice, but a necessity. You can't tell the ambulance driver that you want the cheapest hospital, not the closest. In Tampa, you can't even opt out of the helicopter transport if you don't feel you need it which costs $8000, as opposed to $500 for the ambulance. Not only is it a necessity to save a person's life, but in the case of contagious diseases, to save others as well.

[sunken]

The comment posted twice, so I editted this one. The mod can delete it.

[Mike_115]

Prices can't go down forever, there is a certain cost, and that cost must be covered. I'm sure Laser eye surgery will eventually hit that level. My argument is that health care can be cheaper and better but it's not driven to that competitive edge. Broken legs, Appendicitis, and other emergency situations would still be too expensive to pay out of pocket. Insurance that just covered emergencies would be cheaper than insurance that covers everything. Does your car insurance cover oil changes? Why does your health insurance cover "routine maintenance"? There are doctors that won't take insurance, and they are a lot more affordable than ones that do (if you don't have insurance). My dad went to one several times when he did not have insurance and thought the service was better than a traditional doctor also. This proves that health care could be cheaper and better than it is. Charities and insurance alternatives would provide for the emergencies without removing the competitiveness from the industry. Unfortunately some people fall through the cracks, regardless of whether you have government or charities running it.