Earlier this week, I talked about how I wanted to give Ron Paul a closer look, since after hearing him recently, he doesnt sound nearly as crazy as all have always said he is. I respect that he is consistent in his views, agree with them or not, you know what you would be getting. So lets dig a little deeper, if I'm wrong on any of this, please let me know.
Abortion:
Paul is against it and is strongly pro life. I can get behind this. I should clarify my point I made in the Tebow titled post from last Sunday. I respect all those that are pro life. I'm pro life. As a Catholic, its kinda important to be pro life, what I can't get behind are people who vote entirely based upon someone's view on this one issue. As a dynamic society, we are not a one issue society, why should we vote based upon one position and one position only, the rest of a candidate's polices be damned! Have I voted for a pro life politician? Yes. Do I wish they would be pro life? Yes. Was the candidate I voted for the best overall? Yes, at least in my opinion. Sometimes you can't get everything you want, so you have to do what is for the best of society as a whole in your decisions, at least that is my official position.
Afghanistan:
Paul wants to get out immediately. I agree, to a point. We need to get out, but at this point you cannot simply pull out all at once. You have to get out as soon as you can and in as organized a manner as possible. While, I agreed with going after Bin Laden after 9/11, that time has come and gone. Obama has done a good job in taking down the terrorists. Its time to get out completely, Iraq should have never happened, but thats another story completely.
Budget:
Essentially Paul believes we should have a balanced budget on a yearly basis. This is a great idea, something I can definitely get behind. I wish I could run my personal budget in the red on a year in and year out basis with no negative consequences basically. Clinton balanced the budget and ran this nation with a surplus toward the end of his time in office. Bush had zero disregard for the budget, used 9/11 largely to fund two wars which were never paid for. If you are going to enter into military conflict, you have to pay for it somehow. You have to raise taxes. You have to present it to the people that we are going to have to temporarily raise taxes in order to take down the terrorists. This was never done, instead we cut taxes. How is this actually logical? This is really what pisses me off the most. Sure I love paying less taxes. I will really hate when this nation falls into full economic collapse as a result of all of this. This is Bush's fault along with Congress' fault for letting him have a blank check with no real accountability for the funds. War sucks (which was never really a real war since Congress never declared it so), but when you goto war, you have to make sacrifices in other areas. This was never really done and its led to this stupid debt that is so far out of control that I don't know if it can ever be corrected. And this is so very sad.
Business and Labor:
Paul believes that inflation is caused by a demand by business for easy money, we should not let shareholders vote on executive compensation and we should replace illegal tax breaks on exports with 140 billion in other tax breaks. I do not know enough about monetary policy to comment on it, I'd have to do a lot more research on this for sure. I also am not sure what other tax breaks Paul talks about, so I'll withhold comment for now. I do not agree with Paul's position that shareholders should not vote on executive compensation. Shareholders are the owners and should be allowed to do whatever the please as long as its within the laws said company is regulated by. Having said that, I also think that if a company messes up and gets into financial trouble that they should just be forced to pay the consequences. The bank bailouts for example, are one of the biggest rackets we have seen in modern business history. How the executives at these big banks were allowed to keep their jobs for one is beyond me. How these executives are allowed to have such huge bonuses just a couple of years after the fact is also beyond me. We should have let the banks fail, the FDIC insurance kicks in and covers the deposits, the big banks go under and we move on other institutions. People lose some money, but thats the risk you take.
Paul would overhaul bankruptcy laws to allow for at least partial payment, this I do agree with. One thing I learned in business school is that bankruptcy isnt so bad by and large. Many business people have declared bankruptcy many times and ended up succeeding in business eventually. While I wouldn't want this to change, as this allows for one to fail at something and try again at something else, aka the American dream, but my understanding is that bankruptcy laws as they are right now are in many ways simply a way to avoid debt in a number of cases. This should not be the case. Ever. Further, if you end up succeeding at some point, you should be forced to pay back your back debt at least to some level. You take a risk and fail, you pay the price. Simple as that.
Paul believes the minimum wage limits opportunities. I like having the minimum wage as its stands, I would be more in favor of a living wage, but that's another story. It's good for our society, as there are far too many people who would then be forced to be even more dependent on government for things then they are now. At least in our current environments.
Finally Paul believes that unemployment benefits should be capped at 39 weeks. This I agree with to an extent. In normal times, this should be the case. Due to the many problems in our federal government and the policies they have already enacted, this is difficult to do. Once we fix the root caues of many things, then let's get back to this. Until then, difficult to do.
Capital Punishment:
Paul is now against the death penalty. I am also against it but for different and also similar reasons as Mr. Paul. Paul is against it simply due to the fact that it allows for a potential innocent person to be put to death. This I agree with as well. However, I also think that the same concept that we use for the 'culture of life' argument in abortion can be applied here as well. Yes the people sentenced to death have done a lot of wrong in their lives. But who are we to judge? When did we as humans on this earth become the judge of who lives and who dies. It is my belief that as a Catholic, if you are against abortion, then you had better be against the death penalty as well. I have never understood the glossing over of a candidate's position on this subject and looked so heavily as abortion only. (I should note that I don't know any other candidate's position on this as of right now, so I cannot say one way or another how anyone else positions themselves) Hey, I disagree with the Catholic church on some things, but if you want to be a holy roller and talk about how you believe in Jesus Christ et al, then you had better not say on one hand that you are against abortion and on the other hand say you are for the death penalty!
Civil Liberties:
Paul believes the government should stay out of gay and lesbian issues. Agree. See this is my position on marriage. If you are to allow a man and a woman to marry and receive tax benefits, health benefits, death benefits et al, then you have to do it for two men or two women who want to do the same thing. Simply change the wording allowing for two able minded adult citizens can enter into a marriage agreement and receive the same benefits. But Adam, this is wrong, the Church says that only a man can marry a woman. I agree! I am not saying the Catholic Church needs to accept this tenant. If the Catholic Church says only a man and a woman can marry, then that's the only people who can marry in the eyes of the Church. If you want to do something outside of the Church and live in a life of sin, go for it. We are all sinners after all! It's up to you and God when you reach your judgement when you die. I can only work on my soul and the souls of my family members firstly, secondly I'll work on trying to spread the Good News to others.
Paul believes the Patriot Act should not be made permanent. I cannot agree with this more. I never got the Patriot Act outside of an initial period after 9/11. It was a knee jerk reaction. Airport security never failed on 9/11. Let's get this straight once and for all. The failure in not having a strict enough policy on what is and what is not allowed on a plane. Box cutters were legal items. The terrorists brought on board legal items. Security itself at the airport never failed. So lets just go to the other extreme now. Wonderful. And wire tap into anyone one desires without cause other then a 'hunch' and all the other crap that is the Patriot Act. Culture of fear is what is comes from. Culture of fear.
Paul believes eminent domain should be illegal. This is something I cannot get behind. However, if you are to invoke this, then you have to show cause for it for some specific public good. i.e. roadway. Then you should be forced to pay a certain % to obtain said land. Government should not be able to claim eminent domain, make something 'fair market value' based on who knows what and then force an owner off a piece of land. It needs to be more strict with certain things put in place to protect the private property owner.
I have written a lot. I have taken some of Paul's positions and interjected my own analysis and thoughts into them. Let me clarify. I am a Catholic and no I do not like little boys. Hooray stereotypes! So some of my views are based upon my religious beliefs, don't hate me for it, dont try to sway me on those views. It is what it is!
I will continue on with this probably later today and dig even deeper into Ron Paul and some of his positions.
No comments:
Post a Comment