Ron Paul Interviewed on The NewsHour
tags:
Stumble ThisJudy Woodruff interviews Dr. Ron Paul on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
ron paul,republican,election,primary,pbs Ron Paul Interviewed on The NewsHour
Comments  playlists with this video Save America.. by firedoggod
who voted for this video jonny
- Grimm
- siftbot
x46who has this post bookmarked firedoggod
- Grimm
- bluephoenix
- swampgirl
Ron Paul Interviewed On The NewsHour Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote  Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 15. d3bas3r
(125 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments       | ||||||||||||||
In any event, keep up the Ron Paul videos, brother! This guy is making great sense. We need more support for this guy.
Some great instances of what I'm getting at:
1) Get rid of the department of education? It should be one of the most heavily funded departments and, imo, should be reorganized to include NSF, NIH, NEA, etc. To leave curricula up to local control is madness, and is the reason we have local school boards trying to shove creationism down our kids throats. And additionally, notice how he thinks the federal courts should not prevent public schools from organizing prayer. While correct from a strict constructionist point of view, it's also crazy. It is true that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," it seems to me that on the same legal basis, Congress should be able to prevent local authorities from doing the same.
2) Get rid of income tax? Well, what do you plan to replace that with Dr. Paul? A national sales tax that overwhelmingly favors the rich? Or perhaps you intend to institute a wealth tax?
3) How about the federal goverment passing out money to people in New Orleans. Shameful and irresponsible. We should've just let it sink into the Gulf, right Ron? I wanted to jump through the tubes and throttle him for that one.
There's plenty more there to pick apart, and hopefully some others will, and really get this discussion going.
If that 10% is an about-face on current US foreign policty - I think he should be supported.
Originally the US was a loose confederation of states. You need to get the other meaning of "state" in your mind. A state like - Japan is a state, not a province. RP would like to return to that. Something like the EU, wherein each US state is a country in a loose confederation.
IMHO this is not a bad thing. The disharmony between the coastal states and "Jesustan" in the middle, highlights that the US is made up of regions where the majority have very little in common with each other.
Kansas wants to teach Intelligent Design in the classroom? OK, fine. Thank Darwin, I'm from the Republic of California.
If you would listen to Dr. Paul, you would realize that those issues wouldn't be a problem.
1) Get rid of the department of education? It should be one of the most heavily funded departments and, imo, should be reorganized to include NSF, NIH, NEA, etc. To leave curricula up to local control is madness, and is the reason we have local school boards trying to shove creationism down our kids throats. And additionally, notice how he thinks the federal courts should not prevent public schools from organizing prayer. While correct from a strict constructionist point of view, it's also crazy. It is true that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," it seems to me that on the same legal basis, Congress should be able to prevent local authorities from doing the same.
The DoE is one of the most under-performing government agencies. Ever since it was created, the amount of federal money spent on education has increased while the quality of education for the average student has gone down. In any free market, such a department would be closed down, not given more money. But that's not even then point. The federal government has no authority to regulate education without a Constitutional amendment, as you mention. So, if you think federal government control of education would be better than local governments despite 225 years of contradictory evidence, by all means, change the Constitution. Otherwise, it's un-Constitutional.
2) Get rid of income tax? Well, what do you plan to replace that with Dr. Paul? A national sales tax that overwhelmingly favors the rich? Or perhaps you intend to institute a wealth tax?
Dr. Paul has already explained his position on the income tax quite thoroughly. You do realize that the income tax only covers approximately 30% of federal spending, so if you cut spending, it would be quite easy to do without an income tax. So, why replace it with anything? We did just fine without an income tax prior to 1913.
3) How about the federal goverment passing out money to people in New Orleans. Shameful and irresponsible. We should've just let it sink into the Gulf, right Ron? I wanted to jump through the tubes and throttle him for that one.
Once again, it's not the federal government's responsibility to redistribute wealth from citizens, regardless of the situation. At the same time, FEMA has proven itself to be an horrendously wasteful and inefficient government program, like most federal institutions.
Local solutions ARE BETTER, many states are ahead of federal regulations when it comes to education, environment, drug policy, minimum wage, etc. Once a few states have a better solution to any given problem then other people in other states will want better solutions for their states. Centralized power in such a big country is far too slow to respond and when it does the policies are watered down and corrupted. The more I think about it the harder it is to imagine a huge central government doing anything without being slow and wasteful.
-Karl
My opinion is that throwing more money at the school system will not improve education in the U.S. Have you noticed how much tax comes out of your paychecks for the schools in the area? Imagine if you had that in your pocket to pay for a great private school that does a much better job at providing your child with an education?
Same goes with the income tax. We're getting taxed to death! Cut spending, lose half of these failing gov. programs, and put money back into the people's pockets and watch the economy improve.
Centralising control of schools and hospitals in the UK has been a complete disaster.
Ron Paul has it right on both foreign and domestic policies. America is very lucky to have him running right when the country needs him. I hope the American people take a little bit of a leap of faith and vote for him.
If we cut spending back to the level of spending just 7 years ago we would not need an income tax. The Federal government is now in the business or collecting our money and then redistributing it to the companies, groups, and individuals that helped get them elected.
why are people so scared about giving up dependence on armies of idiot civil servants bathing in free money?
famous anecdote... on a visit to London last century, a soviet official asked "who is responsible for the bread supply to london?" and couldn't believe that there was NOBODY responsible, and that supplies were so plentiful. think. about. it.
the quality of education for the average student has gone down ... 225 years of contradictory evidence
Those statements are what's contradictory.
I agree there is a constitutional issue to be dealt with on this. But so is there a constitutional problem of the federal government mandating the 21 y.o. drinking age, for instance.
Dag - not all of the founding fathers envisioned the U.S. as a loose confederation. Read some of Hamilton's essays on the subject. Besides, we don't live in the 18th century anymore. Travel, business, communication are all vastly more free flowing now than even Hamilton expected. On the other hand, it is because of the expense/difficulty of communication and travel for many citizens that national laws on things like abortion, separation of church and state, equal rights, etc., are needed.
Karl (swedishfriend) - you give no context for claiming local solutions are better, just abstractions. Perhaps local solutions would have been better in determining voting rights in the south? Or maybe water usage in the west? I'm not saying that the national government always has the answers, but it is absolutely necessary to have a coherent national policy on things like energy policy, free speech, capital punishment, bank regulation, and on and on. [edit] Just reread your comment Karl - my apologies, you did give some specific examples. But take the minimum wage, for instance. How many states would have none were it not for the federal minimum wage? Yes, many states are ahead of the federal government on things like environmental policy, but how many more would be completely backwards without it?
The reason I can't support RP isn't because I think he will be able to get all of those things done, but because those views will inform all of his decisions. He will push an agenda of strict constructionism on every issue, and it's this blind allegiance to the "intent of the founding fathers" that I find troubling. The founding fathers could not possibly have foreseen the issues we face today. What would they have made of the immigration debate? They wouldn't understand half the complexities involved.
Dag - you don't care if Kansas is teaching creationism? What about when one their graduates becomes a high school science teacher in your district? Or is appointed to the federal bench?
We did just fine without an interstate highway system then too. Welcome to the 21st century.
it's not the federal government's responsibility to redistribute wealth from citizens, regardless of the situation
Taxes are exactly that - a redistribution of wealth - in all forms. Medicare? Interstate highways? NSF grants? The list goes on. The purpose of redistributing wealth is to enable the creation of greater wealth for everyone. The rich get richer, and the poor get richer. It's called the common good.
FEMA has proven itself to be an horrendously wasteful and inefficient government program
That is because of cronyism, which is far worse at the local level.
If the federal government had answered years of calls from folks in Louisiana to help rebuild the wetlands and improve the levee system, that tragedy would likely never have happened.
I grew up in southeast Louisiana. That should pretty much explain it. Although, I have to say, as I've moved around the country, I've seen as much corruption and incompetence everywhere else as there.