Republican 2012 Candidates

[FreakyLocz14]

Wow, so many undecided voters; glad I'm not in the US.

That's because of how early it is in the election cycle.

And what exactly is extreme about this guy. He sounds like the most sane and common sense man in Washington to me.

 

[Trance and Moss]

Ron Paul probably would be considered extreme compared to other modern candidates, but extreme is what is necessary if people want to actually see some real change in the US.

I don't think his beliefs are extreme in a historical sense for American politics, they just seem extreme in comparison to all the watered down circular logic which people are used to hearing.

 

[The Author]

Anyways anyone saw this very infamous Ad yet?



And with that It's a 3 way for Mitt, Gingrich and Ron Paul. :/

That ad makes me laugh. Yeah, I'm a Christian, but since when has Obama been at war with religion? Sounds like he's just taking advantage of Christians to me.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Ron Paul probably would be considered extreme compared to other modern candidates, but extreme is what is necessary if people want to actually see some real change in the US.

I don't think his beliefs are extreme in a historical sense for American politics, they just seem extreme in comparison to all the watered down circular logic which people are used to hearing.

I agree completely with this.

We need someone who is bold enough to take those big steps to end the wars, eliminate the Federal Reserve, return us to sound money, eliminate $1 trillion is spending in a year, and repeal Obamacare.

 

[-ty-]

Like others above have mentioned, policing the world is not our responsibility. If Israel is taking more and more land from Palestine, it is radical to send Israel more weapons so that the Israelis can drive the Palestinians out of what little is left of Palestine, or for them to defend themselves for the imperialistic behavior. We need to let them decide their own fate, as we do our own. Also, we have military stations patrolling many other countries; I am confident that if another country decided to construct a base in our country that we would be up in arm - literally. Someone mentioned that it is our responsibly to stabilize the middle east and intervene in disputes, but our intervention costs money and gives preference to one country over the other. People are poor and out-of-work in our own country; why does our money go into policing other nations. This behavior is very extreme, and it is exhibited by both liberal and conservatives congressman. Ron Paul is the only top-tier candidate that is not imperialistic and therefore, the only one that is not wasteful in spending. The category that receives the most money is the defense sector, which was about 1 trillion dollars this year; how is that not extreme?

 

[Livewire]

Like others above have mentioned, policing the world is not our responsibility.

Regardless of who's responsibility it is, you can't just ignore nearly a century's worth of political precedent. It's been that way since the end of the Spanish-American war. You can't just up and stop aide to military allies one day because you feel like it. Like I mentioned earlier, someone fluent in foreign politics knows better than this. Which Paul is not. Neither is Perry, Bachman, Gingerich or Romney.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Regardless of who's responsibility it is, you can't just ignore nearly a century's worth of political precedent. It's been that way since the end of the Spanish-American war. You can't just up and stop aide to military allies one day because you feel like it. Like I mentioned earlier, someone fluent in foreign politics knows better than this. Which Paul is not. Neither is Perry, Bachman, Gingerich or Romney.

Eliminating foreign aid is a no-brainer. This is one of the easiest cuts to make.

 

[Livewire]

Eliminating foreign aid is a no-brainer. This is one of the easiest cuts to make.

"Aid" isn't just money. Technology, intelligence, weaponry, etc.

 

[-ty-]

"Aid" isn't just money. Technology, intelligence, weaponry, etc.

Exactly, all of those forms of aid cost money. And really, do we need to be the number one arms supplier of the world?

Also, just because it is a "precedent" it doesn't mean it is the best decision. Also, Paul doesn't want to make cuts because he "feels like it" he wants to cut the deficit and he doesn't want the U.S. putting a target on its back for intermingling in other country's affairs/conflicts. Why do you think 9/11 occurred; why target the U.S. specifically? It's not because they are jealous of our freedom or liberties as many other GOP candidates proclaimed. It's because we intervene and instigate wars.

 

[Livewire]

Exactly, all of those forms of aid cost money. And really, do we need to be the number one arms supplier of the world?

Also, just because it is a "precedent" it doesn't mean it is the best decision. Also, Paul doesn't want to make cuts because he "feels like it" he wants to cut the deficit and he doesn't want the U.S. putting a target on its back for intermingling in other country's affairs/conflicts. Why do you think 9/11 occurred; why target the U.S. specifically? It's not because they are jealous of our freedom or liberties as many other GOP candidates proclaimed. It's because we intervene and instigate wars.

Should we be? No, I don't think so. Are we because of the current state of world affairs? Yes. Speak softly and carry a big stick. Been a cornerstone of US Foreign policy since Teddy Roosevelt. You can't just up and walk out on decades-old military alliances, trade agreements, etc. Not that we should or shouldn't, we physically can't. No elected politician is stupid enough to try it, and the ones dumb enough to try don't get elected or lose it rather quickly. It's about maintaining the status quo.

That's why Paul isn't popular, even within his party. For a senior politician, ending vital military alliances, and damaging American interests, is a no-no.


Also, 9/11 was so much more than a response to U.S. involvement in foreign countries, don't try to cheapen the event to suit your point.

 

[-ty-]

I wasn't cheapening the event. If we were not entangling ourselves into the affairs of other nations, we would not have been the target of that attack. Do you think that there is another reason why the attack occurred? We are carrying a big stick, but instead of being passive(speaking softly),we instigate and intermingle in other nation's affairs. We literally would not have had a terrorist attack if we were not involved with Afghanistan. It cheapens the attack when our congressman neglect that fact and say that the terrorist were motivated by unprovoked hate of Americans.

Plus, we can't afford to be bankrupt, or have poor living standards for our citizens. It is in the American interest to have a prosperous economy, rather than borrowing money from foreign nations and hyper-inflating the currency in order to fund many parts of the defense budget. The fiscal irresponsibility has destroyed the middle class and left people without jobs. Less troops will die, less terrorist attacks will occur, and our deficit will decrease, and subsequently our economy and job creation will strengthen. Look at our NATO Alliance expenditures. Of all 28 countries we make up more than 75% of the total money spent. We also supply 40% of all the countries troops that are deployed. We do this so that we have more control over other NATO countries, and therefore we are not being forced to spend all of this money to be in the alliance, but rather, so we can control the alliance. If we spent as much as the UK, which is the second highest contributor to NATO, we would cut the budget by 3/4 of a trillion dollars every year. That is my point, and I hope you can see some middle-ground with me. We are overly involved in foreign affairs. We can still be present in the world and allied with other nations without bankrupting ourselves for insider politicians' political gain. This is what Ron Paul intends to do. Cutting the defense budget, not eliminate it.

Here is a table of the expenditures and troop deployment; I also checked the source, and it was sited by NATO's website.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#Expenditures_and_strength

 

[FreakyLocz14]

The 9/11 attacks took place because we were invading their countries. We've been meddling in their affairs for decades.

Would the United States sit idly by if another country was invading us?

 

[Dakotah]

I agree completely with this.

We need someone who is bold enough to take those big steps to end the wars, eliminate the Federal Reserve, return us to sound money, eliminate $1 trillion is spending in a year, and repeal Obamacare.

Let's run a hypothetical: if you were a candidate in this election, exactly what programs would you cut to eliminate the $1 trillion in spending?

As for health care, if you were a candidate in this election, and knowing that the U.S.'s health care system is currently ranked 37th in the world compared to Canada's 30th place, and the U.K.'s 18th place, and France's 1st place according to the WHO, what would you do to improve the U.S.'s health care system?

 

[-ty-]

Let's run a hypothetical: if you were a candidate in this election, exactly what programs would you cut to eliminate the $1 trillion in spending?

As for health care, if you were a candidate in this election, and knowing that the U.S.'s health care system is currently ranked 37th in the world compared to Canada's 30th place, and the U.K.'s 18th place, and France's 1st place according to the WHO, what would you do to improve the U.S.'s health care system?

In the example I have above, lowering our spending in defense, and still remaining the highest contributing nation to NATO, we can cut 3/4 of a trillion dollars.

The problem with this national health care legislation is the price. The rates are very high, and call for tax increases. The pharmaceutical companies lobbied heavily (spent tens of millions of dollars) for the bill because it secures the these companies hundreds of billions of dollars every year due to the high rates included in the legislation. According to WHO, the United States is 37th as you mentioned in healthcare quality, we are also 2nd highest in expenditures. Obviously hiking prices for health care is not been in our best interest, but rather the interests of politicians and medical companies. I don't understand why the solution is to pump more money/tax dollars into healthcare. The new healthcare system would increase the GDP to over 20%, which would make us about double the spending of that of France and Italy.

 

[Dakotah]

In the example I have above, lowering our spending in defense, and still remaining the highest contributing nation to NATO, we can cut 3/4 of a trillion dollars.

I agree, lowering defense spending would reduce the deficit. The only difficulty I see with this is the hawkish position of some legislators in both the House and the Senate who adamantly refuse to reduce by any amount defense spending. Thus creating the dilemma.

The problem with this national health care legislation is the price. The rates are very high, and call for tax increases. The pharmaceutical companies lobbied heavily (spent tens of millions of dollars) for the bill because it secures the these companies hundreds of billions of dollars every year due to the high rates included in the legislation. According to WHO, the United States is 37th as you mentioned in healthcare quality, we are also 2nd highest in expenditures. Obviously hiking prices for health care is not been in our best interest, but rather the interests of politicians and medical companies. I don't understand why the solution is to pump more money/tax dollars into healthcare. The new healthcare system would increase the GDP to over 20%, which would make us about double the spending of that of France and Italy.

But that still doesn't answer the question. What would you do if you were campaigning in this election? What action would you take to get health spending under control while at the same time ensuring that all Americans have the opportunity to receive the health care they need?

 

[Mr. X]

Those numbers are not accurate though. They were comprised in 2000, 11 years ago. Thw WHO hasn't made new numbers due to the complexity of modern health care systems.

Edit - From the '97 numbers, we were 72nd. In 2000 we were 37th.

 

[Dakotah]

Those numbers are not accurate though. They were comprised in 2000, 11 years ago. Thw WHO hasn't made new numbers due to the complexity of modern health care systems.

Edit - From the '97 numbers, we were 72nd. In 2000 we were 37th.

Until a more recent report is provided, these are the numbers we have to go by to evaluate the effectiveness of each country's health care systems.

But still, all that is irrelevant given the question I posed.

Each of the Republican candidates in the race now have indicated that they'd do away with the recently passed health care legislation. But not one of them has proposed a way of accomplishing the following:

- Reducing costs of providing health care.
- Increasing the number of people covered by health insurance
- Reducing insurance rates and premiums.
- Eliminating discrimination based on medical status.

There are some, who have advocated for the elimination of all public funding of health care (eradicating medicare and medicaid entirely), and allowing the private sector to take over.

So the question remains, what would you do to address these areas of concern if the health care law was to be repealed?

 

[Mr. X]

Copy Frances system. We can't make a system that works so we'll need to use someone elses.

That said, the WHO is no longer doing the rankings due to increasing complexity in how the ranks are determined.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Until a more recent report is provided, these are the numbers we have to go by to evaluate the effectiveness of each country's health care systems.

But still, all that is irrelevant given the question I posed.

Each of the Republican candidates in the race now have indicated that they'd do away with the recently passed health care legislation. But not one of them has proposed a way of accomplishing the following:

- Reducing costs of providing health care.
- Increasing the number of people covered by health insurance
- Reducing insurance rates and premiums.
- Eliminating discrimination based on medical status.

There are some, who have advocated for the elimination of all public funding of health care (eradicating medicare and medicaid entirely), and allowing the private sector to take over.

So the question remains, what would you do to address these areas of concern if the health care law was to be repealed?

I would eliminate all public funding of health care (save for the military and government employees) and let the private sector take over.

Why should I care about who is covered and who isn't if I was running for office? That's not the government's job.

 

[Mr. X]

If its not the governments job then why are you allowing government funded health care for the military and government employee's? Seems to me that your saying 'Its not the government's job unless the person does this this this this this or this.'