Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) reacted to President Obama's State of the Union Address Tuesday night. As expected, Paul said the president used his speech as a campaign platform and not a true State of the Union. That was a view expressed by many Obama detractors even prior to the address. Rep. Paul said, "Instead of offering solutions to the problems our country faces, the President was intent on delivering a campaign speech, further dealing in the typical Washington political gamesmanship that has gotten us exactly nowhere close to improving the lives of the American people."
It was clear that President Obama had his campaign face on. To be fair, most presidents facing re-election have done the same thing while doing their last State of the Union Address. Rep. Paul felt that most of the speech was devoted to "rhetoric" about job creation. He said the president was "bragging" about job creation when his health care plan was actually "job-destroying". He also said the Dodd-Frank bill "guarantees future taxpayer bailouts of large institutions."
In a statement many Americans will likely agree with, the Representative wrote about Obama's claims regarding the economy. He wrote that Obama wants "...an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. Yet he remains committed to the same old system of debt, deficits, bailouts, and cronyism that created our economic problems. The President speaks of giving us energy independence from unstable nations, yet he refuses to allow the type of development needed to achieve this goal, while at the same time his administration hands out favors to the politically connected - those given to the likes of Solyndra, who fail to produce jobs or energy but succeed in ripping off the taxpayers."
The libertarian leaning Paul has focused on his "End the Fed" mission for a long time. The people have a president who pretends that all is well with the Federal Reserve. He said that the president "...refuses to even mention the role the Federal Reserve plays in creating an economic system where some are denied a fair shot or even to support my efforts at bringing transparency to the Federal Reserve."
Rep. Paul pointed out that Obama didn't even bring up how crucial it was to curtail spending and balance the federal budget. He said that some call it "the greatest threat to our national security". He reminded readers that with his Plan to Restore America, $1 trillion in spending cuts would occur in his first year as president if he won the election.
In closing, Rep. Paul brought up his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), and his detainment by the TSA in Nashville. He said, "In the area of foreign policy and civil liberties, President Obama's rhetoric may be different, but the substance of his polices - as shown by his administration's defense of the TSA's treatment of my son, Senator Rand Paul, is hardly 'change we can believe in.'"
You can read Ron Paul's entire reaction here.
© Margie Wilson-Mars 2012
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 60
Ron Paul may not be George Bush and may have opposed much of his agenda but he remains a Republican, the party of Bush. If you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas. Don't then blame others for the itching you need to scratch.
Good grief!
As to his record, Paul voted in congress against the establishment of Martin Luther King Jr. day, perhaps the clearest indication in his voting record of his agreement or lack there of with the things written under his name.
I do not agree that Ron Paul or his supporters should "shut up" - or anyone else, for that matter.
He has taken responsibility since it went out under his name. Maybe he could have spent all his time reading every article, but he didn't, for perfectly sensible reasons. Information did not spread like it does in the per-internet days.
If you owned a company are you irresponsible if any problems exist which you are unaware of and not directly involved in? Of course not.
Perry contended his family painted over the rock with the problematic name shortly after acquiring the old hunting grounds and cattle land, but visitors to the ranch said, "Nuh uh." And no matter what, people in the area who hunted on the land seemed very aware that the place had just always been called "Niggerhead."
Texas politicians including Ron Paul seem to have some serious issues when it comes to race.
He must have been listening to another speech. I heard a number of solutions.
"Yet he remains committed to the same old system of debt, deficits, bailouts, and cronyism that created our economic problems."
Paul seems to confuse Obama with w. The "bailout" of GM seemed to work. And GM is building Volts now, instead of hummers, decreasing our need for foreign oil. And if you want to understand the "cronyism that created our economic problems," you should read Ratigan's new book, Greedy Bastards
Experience has taught us that investment in the renewable-energy economy is creating jobs across all employment sectors, including construction, engineering, operations, technology and professional services, in both rural and urban communities. Greater use of renewable energy also will allow the country to prolong its current power-generation resources while developing new generation technologies to ensure a secure and homegrown supply of energy.
Gov. Sam Brownback, (R-KS)
"...Rep. Paul brought up his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), and his detainment by the TSA in Nashville."
I've been "frisked" by TSA personnel before. I didn't have any problem with it. Why did Rand? Was he carrying a weapon? These people are just trying to do their jobs. Rand Paul simply doesn't like rules. He pulled the same crap, when he disagreed with the rules of the medical board, overseeing his practice. He quit and formed his own "board". He apparently has a problem with authority.
Here's ur answer to that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDDRiGIUYQo
You stated "And GM is building Volts now, instead of hummers, decreasing our need for foreign oil." GM cant build a decent car if their life depended on it... OH WAIT! Thats right! they were resuscitated! THEY DID DIE! It doesnt take much ingenuity or talent to take the badges off of a chevy malibu and rename it an Oldsmobile cutlass or to do that with a GMC Envoy and a Chevy Tahoe... that is SAD... WHO approves these things? I want to see that person and slap him so hard he cant think straight for a few days. If i had people with those kinds of ideas in my company i would show them the door... Oh and BTW Your answer to that is right here: "http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/20/autos/nhtsa_closes_volt_fire_investigation/index.htm"
I could keep going... but u get the point...
Currently my hubby drives a honkin big Ford pick up that drives and rides like a dream ... you don't even know you are in a truck the way that thing handles. Gets decent gas mileage too.
I drive a Toyota Highlander.
I know a lot of people like the Volt, but I wouldn't own a GM if it was gold lined, got 100 mpg and served me ice tea automatically from the dash board (okay, maybe if it did that I might consider it)... But as long as it doesn't do that I wouldn't own one unless it was free; or the last car on earth.
Freedom would not result from eliminating government to the degree that Paul advocates. What would result is a dramatic rise in corporate power, which is already way out of control.
Libertarians claim to be against "corporatism", but they seem to have no defense against it.
Specifically, why is that? It is not because Paul has any real defense against corporatism - at least, as far as I can see.
"...he is harmful to military corporatism, and every other type of corporatism."
Ok. I can see that not fighting resource wars would hurt military-industrial profits. You just don't spend the money. Great! I agree. But that doesn't solve the issue, generally. You still have banks and pharmaceutical companies, information industries and insurance companies. They are at least as prone to corporatism as the weapons manufacturers.
For exactly the reason Ajatasutra says, their current wealth and control is only possible by collusion with the government.
Do you think corporatism is possible without the government in the equation? How would that be possible?
That said, I think it's pretty obvious that the Republican Party's disdain of Dr Paul is a result of two components of his libertarianism - 1. he's against military adventurism (meaning no more MIC collusion by government, or at least less), and 2. he's as against the idea of a socially conservative activist government as he is a liberal one (that may be over-stating things, but I think the premise is valid). Those two essential components of Dr Paul's political philosophy make him anathema to a Republican Party that, since Reagan, has participated most freely with the MIC and has flirted non-stop with social conservative activism.
Ajatasutra: "I do believe that Laissez Faire capitalism can also result in run away corporatism (they'd just be less protected by the government)."
So, I don't think the issue is one of having government involvement or not. It is one of whether that involvement is corrupt or not. I agree that Laissez Faire capitalism is (if not an oxymoron) prone to rapid devolution into corporate tyranny. I do not know of another institution capable of protecting citizens from that kind of exploitation. Do either of you?
I'm not anti-corporation. I'm anti-corporatist. Corporations have a very valuable place in society. But when they use resources to interfere with government to further their own interests - that is a cancer. The entity, which has made that possible, is the supreme court. Decisions like corporations are people, money is speech, and you can contribute unlimited amounts for political purposes have distorted the function of government. The fix isn't to do away with government, but separate functions -- very clearly.
I would also ban corporations from owning other corporations, making actual ownership almost impossible to determine.
GetMoneyOut
"I would also ban corporations from owning other corporations...."
And ideally, owners and shareholders should be directely affected by the negative impacts of corporate behavior, i.e., they should have to live in the community that is "polluting the neighborhood."
My use of the term is a system in which corporations/businesses obtain non-market advantages, privileges, and powers from the government via regulations, subsidies and bailouts, etc.
Hence... corporatism is not possible without the state. I do not believe that free markets, or "Laissez Faire capitalism is (if not an oxymoron) prone to rapid devolution into corporate tyranny." By definition, these two contradict. The free market is regulated by natural/property rights, while tyranny is regulated by... the tyrant (and the consent of the people).
I do not know of another institution capable of protecting citizens from that kind of exploitation. Do either of you?
Is the state actually capable of this, or is the present corporatism proof that it isn't?
Anyhow, as I mentioned, there must be rules to govern the proper use of violence (including any violent exploitation) in society. No one is questioning that, I think...
And what is the institution that protects property rights?
Yes, and no. The current corporatism is proof of corruption, brought about by the flood of money in politics, both through campaign contributions and lobbyists. The functions of corporations and government are distinct, and need to remain distinct. Btw, those functions are not at odds.
"The free market is regulated by natural/property rights, while tyranny is regulated by... the tyrant (and the consent of the people)."
"...consent of the people" implies goverment, operating as it is supposed to. It does not operate well, when it is flooded by corporate money.
"...there must be rules to govern the proper use of violence."
How about when violence is not so clear? Ask folks, whose property values and health deteriorate when CAFOs move into the county. How about threats of violence, when a property owner refuses to leave his land because a coal company wants to level the mountain he lives on?
"I make my case on rights in this article: 'Our Natural Rights."
Actually, you present your case - I don't think you make it.
Good point. They are Constitutional, which already invokes government. Actually, I think the Constitution was formulated out of a mindset, which was contributed to by a publication, The Social Contract. Today, that would be seen as a "socialist" document.
The real issue is what a critical mass of people believe the proper role of legitimate coercion is. That determines whether the institution that protects property rights actually protects property rights, and whether it is the state or a voluntary institution.
How about when violence is not so clear?
There will be some tough cases no matter what system is used. On the CAFO example, that type of pollution would be a clear violation of property rights. On the coal example, the question is settled by who owns the land.
A voluntary institution?
"On the CAFO example, that type of pollution would be a clear violation of property rights. On the coal example, the question is settled by who owns the land."
Then it becomes a question of enforcement. Have you, as a citizen, ever run up against the interests of a corporation? If so, who did you turn to?
There is such a thing as private security and private arbitration already, but some thinkers have argued that a society could actually have market based property rights enforcement institutions fill this role completely, making the state unnecessary. I'm talking about, of course, the anarcho-capitalists. It sounds crazy and it certainly isn't going to happen in our generation. It was incredibly hard for me to grasp how such a system would be workable, but after reading a book and a few articles on it, I can't exactly dismiss it as a distant-future possibility, even though I doubt very much that it will ever happen.
Then it becomes a question of enforcement.
Right. The current system must be improved. Fortunately, I have not personally had to deal with that issue yet.
Well, it does sound "crazy", and of course, voters have no input.
"Right. The current system must be improved. Fortunately, I have not personally had to deal with that issue yet."
1. I agree, the current system has to be improved. Get money out of politics, and it will be. 2a. Do you really know what you have and have not been confronted wth via corporate pollution? 2b. The highest moral standard would say that if any of us have had to deal with that issue, we all have. Unfortunately, we are far too willing to accept it when a few of us bear the burden - whether it miners, who die in the mines, soldiers, who die in "resource wars", property owners, who are intimidated into "selling" their land, property owners, who have gas rigs built on adjoining property, etc., etc., etc.