6 ms·

Ron Paul and Rand Paul are corporatists. They happen to be right on a couple of issues but they are wrong on almost everything else. A list of things they are w

• pvnick 13y ago
  Your post contains zero information apart from "Here's a bunch of talking points. You go research them" Edit: Ebbv recently changed his post to elaborate on his points, so while his argument now basically boils down to "I'm a hardline liberal and this is where the Pauls and I differ," my post is no longer relevant.
  • ebbv 13y ago
    I didn't think it was too much to ask that if you were defending him you'd know his stance on those issues. But I clarified for you since you asked.
  • smutticus 13y ago
    All I learned from your two posts was that you are very angry. ebbv is listing actual positions of the Pauls on various issues. If you think he's wrong then call him out on them.
    • rubikscube 13y ago
      His points aren't even written coherently, but are slogans. e.g. "right to choose" and "They are against equal pay for equal work laws." He would have to demonstrate where Ron Paul and Rand Paul stated they are for inequality of pay for equal work. When you look at the issues, they aren't the same thing the juvenile slogans make them out to be.
      • dram 13y ago
        He's writing as if they are against all these ideas, as opposed to being against that particular policy or implementation for a solution. Also the issues are a lot more nuanced.
      • aaronbrethorst 13y ago
        Unfortunately, Paul wasn't in the Senate for their 2009 vote on Ledbetter. But, do you honestly think that someone who opposes anti-segregation laws because they 'tell business what to do' would have voted for an equal pay bill?
    • rubikscube 13y ago
      Smutticus, if I were to ask you if you think parents should be allowed to kill their one-month-old child, and you responded, "no," under your and ebbv's logic, you are "against the right to choose." You show you give the issues no real thought, or more likely, choose to coldly ignore the harsh realities.
• HarryRotha 13y ago
  Your calling someone a corporatist who has fought against every corporate bailout thrown together in Washington? Thats rather silly mate. I'm not very into any 1 ism myself, but I've studied enough to realize that there are pointed differences between corporatism and capitalism. The Pauls seem to be capitalists. Many others who claim to be capitalists are corporatists.
  • ebbv 13y ago
    He fights against bailouts, sure. But he also fights against all regulation.
    • jimzvz 13y ago
      Regulation is exactly what enables corporatism.
      • ebbv 13y ago
        Uhh, no. Regulation is what requires corporations to dispose of pollutants properly instead of just dumping them in rivers. Regulation is what requires corporations to give workers proper safety warnings, equipment and training rather than just putting them in harm's way. Regulation is what requires corporations to disclose their accounting to investors instead of telling them whatever they want. Regulation is what requires corporations to pay full time workers overtime, give breaks and sick time, and just generally treat them like human beings. Regulation is for corporations what criminal law is for individuals. It's what prevents the worst of us from behaving as badly as they would otherwise. Not all regulation is automatically good, just like not all criminal laws are automatically good. But there is a reason it exists, and it has an important role to play.
        • waffle_ss 13y ago
          Actually yes, regulation also gives favored status to corporations. For example, the "Big Three" credit rating agencies who were given the federal gov't's blessed "NRSRO" status, who controlled 95% of the market share on credit ratings and who ended up being a a major cause of the 2008 bank failure due to their malfeasance in rating debt. Another example is Bell Systems("Ma Bell")'s stifling of innovation as they held a government-sanctioned monopoly over telephone service via the Communications Act of 1934. Ma Bell would have had no reason to build you an iPhone as they had the market cornered.
• jimzvz 13y ago
  You've added why YOU think they are wrong, that doesn't make them wrong. >You may disagree with my viewpoints, but the point of this comment is to show I have well considered reasons for not liking them. Maybe you need to consider further.
  • ebbv 13y ago
    Of course you don't have to agree with me, you can choose to be wrong if you want to. But my point was that it's not just "contrarian bullshit", and I'm right about that.
    • bmelton 13y ago
      I don't necessarily agree or disagree with you or the OP, but the simple fact that he doesn't agree with your opinion, however considered, doesn't necessarily make him wrong, and it would be best if you tempered your position with the knowledge that it is just your opinion. A couple of counterpoints: The Pauls aren't against civil liberties, they're against abuses of government power. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 extended the federal government's authority to legislating morality through a stretched-to-the-max definition of the Commerce Clause. It is that same Commerce Clause the government has since abused to all ends, and is why medical marijuana grow-houses and dispensaries are raided by the federal government in California, even though California has deemed it legal. Given that there is no Constitutional provision for marijuana either way, that should de facto remain within the purview of the state. The Civil Rights Act, and the New Deal before it began the malevolent precedent that was set. My opinion is mixed on the matter. Yes, I believe that it is an overreach of federal authority, but I also believe that it needed to be done to uphold the Constitution. That said, there would have been many smaller ways to implement its tenets without allowing the federal government so much power to abuse, especially knowing that they have done so to much woe. The Paul's are against a woman's right to choose, however, that should be tempered with the knowledge that they also believe that the federal government has no authority on the matter. Even Ron Paul's "Sanctity of Life Act" would simply grant the states the authority to disallow abortion (or allow it, however they chose). This is, I think, how we expect our federal government to run, wherein it meddles less with the lives of American citizens and prefers to leave those choices to the states, as the Constitution allows for. On Health Care, I personally find their beliefs to be the right one. In today's economic system, it would be hard to do, but considering the steps that got us to our inflated health care system, and how cheap and efficient it was before those steps were taken, I think it's the right way to go. In short, the federal government, once upon a time, wrongly capped salaries for employees of all sorts. Companies, looking for ways to entice workers, found a loophole - I can pay you the agreed upon max allowed, but I can augment that pay by taking care of your health care, life ensurance, etc., as perks. Now that health care was being paid out of 'big pockets', costs rose because of the additional abstraction between the actual costs and those paying for the care. Since then, the federal government has repealed salary limitations, but companies still provide perks, and health care is still ridiculous. The bar on competition is set so arbitrarily high that it persists. If individuals were to pay for health care out of their own pockets, I have little doubt (though no proof, except history) that costs would baseline back to affordable. I think that Obamacare worsens the situation by adding yet another layer of abstraction to even deeper pockets, FYI, but that is my own personal belief. Regarding immigration, I think you exaggerate. Yes, they want to tighten the borders. Yes, they want to regulate immigration more. The United States currently has some of the most permissive immigration laws in the first world, and those laws are routinely exploited to benefit the exploiters. If we didn't have the social safety net that we had, it would be a non-issue, but as the social safety net that exists is taxpayer funded, it is unfair. That is an opinion, naturally, but it is a generally accepted truth by both major parties, which is why immigration reform is such a hot-button issue. Sadly, it has devolved into an election issue, as whoever can grant amnesty first will likely win the largest number of new voters to their party. All that said, I do agree that your rationale isn't "contrarian bullshit", and I appreciate you taking the time to educate others to your opinion. Obviously, these are complicated issues, with a myriad of possible solutions, some of which likely haven't even been considered (or even thought up) yet. Regardless, neither your opinion nor mine are certain to be 'right'. At best, they're both varying degrees of both right and wrong.
• waffle_ss 13y ago
  Just because someone is against having a massive federal government doesn't make them a corporatist. I suggest you compare the donors that Ron Paul had in his campaign vs. Obama and Romney to find out who the real corporatists are. You could also count how many corporate lobbyists Obama has appointed to positions in the federal government.
  • ebbv 13y ago
    Where did I say anything about Obama or Romney? They are both far too beholden to corporate interests as well. But Obama is right on more issues than the Pauls are, IMHO.
    • waffle_ss 13y ago
      You didn't, I was giving you examples of actual corporatists (particularly Obama as he's actually appointed lobbyists to positions of power in the federal government). corporatist: "A supporter of corporatism." corporatism: "The control of a state or organization by large interest groups." Using the definition of the word, how exactly are either of the Pauls corporatists?
      • ebbv 13y ago
        Bush appointed lots of lobbyists too. It's unfortunately how our government works in an age of unfettered corporate donations. If you hate it as much as I do then you should be for publicly financed campaigns to remove corporate interest from elections. The Pauls are corporatists because they would eliminate basically all regulation and so many government services that corporations would be the government.
        • jpadkins 13y ago
          Do corporations regulate the internet? or consumer electronics? The flaw in your logic is in the absence of government regulation the buyer, not the supplier is the primary regulator in the market. Consumers are more in control of cost/quality/safety trade-offs than corporations, because corporations that tailor their product to their preferences succeed.
• rubikscube 13y ago
  I'll address just one of your lefty talking points. "Right to choose : They are against a woman's right to choose." Why don't you finish the sentence, pal? Right to choose what exactly? Many people recognize that women do not have the right to murder their unborn child. One good thing from the Gosnell case is that the reality of your agendas are becoming more exposed by the day.
  • threeseed 13y ago
    What are you talking about ? "Right to choose" is common parlance. There is nothing debatable about its use in this context. It means a right to choose whether to have an abortion or not. You're just being ridiculous now.
    • rubikscube 13y ago
      I don't care how common a slogan is. They don't stand on their own as "well considered reasons," as ebbv purported. Even more so with this particular slogan, which leaves out the most important part of the thought - the right to kill the unborn. The slogan would have you believe that choice goes without saying.
• sultezdukes 13y ago
  You're a leftist, so of course you disagree with the Pauls. What's your point again?
• lake99 13y ago
  Ron Paul and Rand Paul are vastly different from each other. I wouldn't ever talk about them as if they have similar principles. I am not trying to defend Ron Paul or Rand here. I will tell you my own views on your list of things. Perhaps this will help you understand Ron better. - Civil rights: I don't want my government to have colour-specific laws. I believe in individual rights. When I start a company, I reserve the right to discriminate against blacks, browns or whites. I am brown myself, and don't really care if a potential employer rejects me for my skin colour. - Environmental regulation: I believe in the right to property. I pay money (tax) to agencies to protect these rights. If my neighbour cooks meth, it makes my own home smelly. The police, to protect my property rights, should prevent it. If he is cooking whatever crap he wants on his own farm, and there is no house or person in sight, why should the government make laws to have regulations about stinking the place up? - Finance regulation: regulation and protection lead to corporatism. Your claiming Ron is corporatist based on this seems contrived, to put it mildly. - Right to choose: I disagree with Ron on this. But then Ron wants to leave it up to the state. Fine by me. I'll just walk out of the states I don't like. - Equal pay: see my first note on individual rights. If I find an employer who values my skill enough to pay me more, I'll go there. My employees are free to do the same. I'll discriminate as I please. It's my company. - Food inspection: why isn't the court system enough for this? - Health care: Remember the days when Canadians crossed the border to pay for the service they get? Heck, I'm sure the healthcare industry loves these regulations: they can charge a million bucks to fix your common cold. The government will pay them with your tax or by printing more money. The problem in the US is not universal healthcare. The problem is expensive drugs. Fix your patent laws, and your regulatory hoops, and poor people will be able to afford most drugs themselves. And charities can cover the gap when the drugs are too expensive. That's how it works in India. (Actually, India has other problems: corruption and illiteracy.) - Worker's rights: covered earlier. - Immigration: easy immigration makes no sense in a welfare state.