What's Ron Paul's plan to take care of the people in this country who need help? Hillary Clinton has pledged an additional $700 million for autism research and treatment. What will Ron Paul do for autistic people?
So Hillary is going to give $700 million to her big pharmaceutical friends. That is nice of her. When Ron Paul stops making you pay Federal taxes you can give all that money to help anyone you want.
that's a crock. the problem isn't paying taxes, the problem is what they're going to do with them. we're paying out trillions annually and all we're getting for it is some nasty little war somewhere that enables the defense contractors to get richer. the problem of autistic people is that they have no affordable health insurance, the government keeps cutting funds for therapy rather than fully funding what is needed, and there has been no recognition of the seriousness of the problem with 1 out of every 150 kids now becoming autistic. there is presently estimated to be 1 million autistic people in the US, and i have a sneaking suspicion people like Ron Paul and his cronies would turn them all out in the streets to beg. the 'solutions' are just too simplistic. cut goverment sounds great until you realize it means the rich are just saying 'we got ours, so fuck you all!...again.'
hillary clinton also has over 100 documents that she won't disclose unless she is elected president. fuck that how can anyone even consider voting for hillary?
Hillary Clinton is in bed with the pharmaceutical companies that are responsible for giving kids autism in the first place. Now she wants to help children with autism? Sure. Mass conditioning and propaganda. People believe what the media tells them.
Exactly. I hope he succeeds. The Repukeacrats years ago said they were going to 'end income tax as we know it'. Haha. It hasn't happened, has it? If it had, they wouldn't be able to afford these little imperialistic wars of adventure that are 'protecting' us. I think Ron Paul would really like to end the income tax, but the truth is that it would take an act of Congress (which would almost certainly never go for it) and maybe even the repeal of the 16th Amendment. Rotsa Ruck. We'll need it.
you RP people didn't answer my question. what is ron paul's plan to help people who are less fortunate...people who cannot survive without help? if you're going to stop funding government, then you're also stopping social programs and abandoning those in need. this is a wealthy man's candidate. he helped put reagan into office. what the hell is the matter with you people? wake up!
negative. at any rate most likely he leaves it up to the state to decide, im not even sure though. but you're under the wrong impression, i don't know if you've seen this guy live or not but he'll actually take time and listen to the citizens
Lady, it is not that I or I am sure any other Paul supporters are cold and heartless. I care about the less fortunate. That is why I want to reduce the size of government. The government is notorious for being wasteful and inefficient. None us who really care about helping others should just accept numbers. If we really care we need to dig deeper and see if the government is really doing any good. They can give us a number about how much money goes into social programs, but how much is actually reaching the people that need it and how much is spent on bureaucracy? Does that money go to campaign supporters or those that can actually do good to help others? So Hillary wants to give money to research and treatment, where is that money going? Are these companies doing good research? What if you do dig deeper and don’t like the answers to these questions? Under the current system you have no choice, but if you have your money that would usually go to the government you can instead give it to those you think are actually doing good. Believe it or not the rich actually give to charity. I am sure there are some that don’t, but not all are uncaring and greedy. Ron Paul has never said that he will just drop everyone from all programs. He has said that he wants to help the people that depend on these programs. This is from Ron Paul’s website: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/ </H3> For those that support universal health care I have a question. After the government starts paying for our health care, how much longer do you think we will actually have a choice in our health care? Look at other programs. Once the government starts handing out money they always want to have a say in what happens in that person’s life they are giving the money to. If you value having a say in your health care, I serious suggest thinking long and hard on this one. </H3>
Well, for one thing, Ron Paul isn't running for Emperor-he's running for President. Even if he wanted to end all social programs, which he doesn't, he can't do it without the approval of Congress, which he certainly won't get anyway. And he's not advocating the end of Social Security like Ronnie Raygun was-he's just introduced the revolutionary idea to quit taxing recipients' benefits! If you think that the more taxes that you pay, the more that people are going to be 'helped', then you've been really duped, that's all I can say.....we already spend gargantuan sums of money, and we still don't have universal health insurance like other civilzed countries do, and we never will....if Hilary Clinton is elected, we'll just keep having more of the same-you're the one that needs to wake up! If the income tax was abolished (which it won't be, any more than the gold standard will be reintroduced), it wouldn't mean that government won't be funded-it will just mean that the government will have to be more careful about the money it spends-it won't have so much excess money to fund wars of adventure and regulate your life-then you can start regulating it yourself for a change.
Well, believe it. Ron Paul is the only anti-war candidate; he's the only candidate (well, maybe other than Kucinich) that voted against the war in Iraq-Hillary voted for it-and Paul is the only candidate that's in favor of ending the War on Drugs (which takes a huge percentage of the budget and the majority of the prison population) that's never been anything other than a War on People.
yeah, right. same old republican crap. cut the income taxes 1% and cut the aid programs completely or make it so difficult to qualify you can't even benefit from them at all. the last time we had a democrat in office we had a budget surplus, after 8 years of republicanism we are trillions of dollars in debt and we've killed untold numbers of civilians.
People wouldn't need big daddy government if they had the money to help themselves. They can't do this, though, when they are being taxed to fund wars and line the pockets of parasitic politicians who only PRETEND to give a shit about you. They can't do this with a Federal Reserve system that prints money out of thin air and creates artificially low interest rates, decreasing the value of our dollar by the day.
i think it's a gross oversimplification to say that 'people don't need government' in our present-day society. we obviously do need government. we're a huge and complex society which has long since abandoned our agrarian roots to embark on a new path. we can't go back home to the family farm and be self-supporting any more. like it or not, social programs are a part of our society. we can't function without them, and we have to fund them. a conservative baptist patriarch is not what this country needs right now. i'm not about to forget that this man was a reagan crony, responsible in part for reaganomics - anyone remember that one? the days when ketchup qualified as a vegetable in the school lunch program? no thanks. ron paul would be a giant step backward. what we didn't need was a whole new security department in the bureaucracy creating multiple redundancies. i'm okay with deleting the homeland security department asap before doing so would get complicated.
Well if he is elected President there is little he can do without the help of Congress. What he can do is bring all of the troops home from all over the world and not initiate force against anyone else. This has been a big part of his campaign and something he has full power to do.
Short of getting someone like Ron Paul in office, or even less likely, Dennis Kucinich, what do you all propose to change what is going on. We dont have time to pick and choose, regardless of what you think of the man, his message of peace and diplomacy is 100 times better than what is being proposed by the rest of the candidates. What further do we have to lose?? I understand the cynicism and wariness related to supporting a Republican, and one that had ties to Reaganomics as someone pointed out. However, what, other than the Paul campaign offers more hope for positive change? The youth of this nation are obviously to comfortable to get off of ther cell phones and XBOXes to demonstrate and demand change. Like the gentlewoman from WV stated, lets see if we can make this system work, a breaking point will come one way or another, lets see if we can do it politically first.
I agree with you on that....I know some of the stupid Republicans in my family and elsewhere will do just that, and god forbid Ron Paul was their choice, their heads would probably explode....or more likely they would call their broker and tell them to load up on more defense stocks Lets do hope we're wrong... Know justice know peace, no justice no peace!
