Dr. Ron Paul doesn’t vote against something because it is not perfect, rather he votes against legislation that is illegal (unconstitutional).

Without this kind of integrity, the conservative movement is worthless.

You are getting ridiculous when you are more worried about rhetoric in a commercial no-less than actual substance. There is no one in this contest that even comes close to Dr. Paul when it comes to substance. Now if “proper” rhetoric is what you are after then Paul obviously isn’t want you are looking for. Hillary probably takes the cake with “proper” rhetoric, however, so she might be what you are looking for if you are not looking for substance.

You missed my point.

It’s not his plan. It’s the commercial I have a problem with. They don’t mention plans in the commercial.

For political reasons he can’t just come out and say he wants to end social security. He will get roasted. But he can come out with a plan that does just that while getting young people behind his plan since they will be able to get out and appeasing older people by saying he will meet the promises that we have made to them. I think his plan may actually be very smart. He is taking an issue that the “left” likes in getting out of Iraq and using some of the funds going towards that now to help pay for something that the “right” will go for in slowly transitioning us out of social security.

As his opponents come out one by one to denounce them, they reveal themselves as phony conservative special interest whores….

Very Interesting.

I was criticizing the rhetoric he used in the ad; the idea that saving money in one area means that we can use it to “help” people is simply nothing more than tacit acceptance of the idea that there is an obligation to “help” anyone, which I don’t accept.

If you’re going to run a truly revolutionary campaign then someone needs to stand up and say what no politician ever has — Social Security is broke and it needs to be ended.

Then why were you upset at him with his stance on using the funds from decreasing the military budget as a transition to getting people off of the social security system? This is obviously not a perfect overnight solution, but it seems you got upset at him because it wasn’t.

I don’t believe he ever said he would bring all the soldiers home overnight. He has made it clear that bringing them home would be done as soon as possible but not overnight.

He has not called for the elimination of the federal reserve that I am aware of. He has called for private markets to be able to compete against the fed, which would effectively eliminate it over time.

Seems like you agree with him more than you think.

Where do you stand Doug? Do you expect him to be perfect or do you expect something less than perfect but an advance towards the ultimate goal.

The latter, because it’s clearly the most realistic strategy.

You aren’t going to be able to eliminate the Federal Reserve and put America back on the gold standard any time soon, if ever. You can appoint members of the FRB who are committed to sound monetary policy.

You aren’t going to be able to bring every American solider home from Iraq instantly, or shut down every overseas military base overnight (assuming that shutting all those bases down is a good idea to begin with). You can reform American foreign policy

You aren’t going to be able to tear down America’s trade barriers without regard to what other nations are doing (for reasons I’ve argued before, it is political impossible given pressure from businesses that would be hurt by foreign goods, unions, and general public xenophobia). You can negotiate agreements with other nations that open our barriers to their goods and their barriers to ours, benefiting both nations.

How’s that for a start ?

I think the major thing that Club for Growth misses here is that due to the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government over the past century, our country no longer has the luxury to approve excessively costly, imperfect growth bills. Often times these pro-growth stances are unsustainable. For instance, keeping interest rates artificially low and maintaining a constant federal deficit are pro-growth stances in the short term, but in the long term they are disastrous. Like the private, corporate sector, the public sector has long ago decided to pursue short term growth strategies, and we are now at the point, especially with the first baby boomers starting to cash in on their entitlements, that we can no longer afford imperfect, pro-growth strategies.

Doug said “It’s an interesting question, really, do you insist on the perfect or accept something less than perfect as an advance toward your ultimate goal ?”

Where do you stand Doug? Do you expect him to be perfect or do you expect something less than perfect but an advance towards the ultimate goal.

You seemed to have gone back and forth on this as you have at times crticized him for not being perfect enough and it seems at other times crticized him for being to perfect. It would just be nice to know where you are coming from.

Comment by TerryP — October 29, 2007 @ 2:01 pm

What the CfG fails to understand is that even though measures which may seem to be a step in the right direction in the short-term are actually steps in the wrong direction when viewed long-range. Let’s take their example of federally-funded school choice, for instance. While this may pragmatically appear to be a step toward more choice and more freedom for families to choose where to send their children, the reality is that it is at least as large a step backward by handing more power into the hands of the federal government. Consider the fact that federal funds always have strings attached to them, and that any recipient of federal funds will eventually have to comply with federal stipulations. Then what happens is that the path of least resistence is to simply comply with federal dictates rather that forego the federal subsidies or exemptions. A good example of this sort of tactic is 501(c)(3) status being used as a tool to gag speech in churches. The government offers a perk, the people fall for it, and thus the federal government acquires more control.

This is precisely how clever manipulators of the system coax us toward a more fascistic system with the illusory promise of “free markets”. Were we to follow the CfG’s advice, the federal government would slowly (or perhaps quite rapidly) expand its power both economically and politically. It is precisely the sort of principled stand taken by Ron Paul that guards against this trickery and lights the path to true free market solutions. The fact that the rest of Washington is not onboard is an indictment against Washington, not Ron Paul.

Think economic growth, and not just new buildings, and I think the answer falls into place: more wealth, hopefully for everybody, especially those with least. This means everything from better schools to better medicine to greater cultural opportunities. Think of the gadgets and experiences you would not like to lose or to have missed out on–many have missed out on these because there has not yet been enough economic growth for those goods and services to be generally attainable. “Growth” is a major reason X-rays, indoor plumbing and computers are everywhere in the U.S. today. Lack of it is why that’s not true of every nation. People are productive and gradually improve their situation when they aren’t hindered by their governments (often in collusion with certain elites) or denied property rights and stable, limited rule of law.

In short, economic growth is the real antidote to poverty and shortage of opportunity. As for traffic, housing and immigration, I’m all in favor of clear-headed investigations into the causes of these tensions. So far, I believe hyperactive government has played a significant role in all three.

The only real public policy to promote economic growth is not to have a policy. Paul is an exemplar at this.

Of course, the usual government reaction is to start a new government department to study public policies to promote economic growth…

Here in California we’ve had just about enough “growth”. The roads are jam packed, the housing is jam packed, the Illegal Immigrants are still growing, there is no more water, blah, blah, blah… The rest of the country is right behind us.

Which was the Club for Cartel’s intent.