I know Ron Paul is not a progressive.
I will amend that. He may want some of the same social programs you want, but he does not want the federal government to be the source of the social programmes.
There is a quote in Russia after they built their socialist govt system, 'we built it then we tripped over it.'
Problem is, if you expect only the government to be the provider of progressive agenda, then you will have to sit idly by as it provides the neo-con agenda with the same authority. We are not going to chisel out the west coast and create a separate state here made up of the blue states, so to get the federal government out of providing your progressive wishlist will keep later (R) Presidents/Congress` from having Halliburton provide sex education, school lunches, and healthcare.
I am a firm believer that a big part of the reasons our communities are falling apart is we keep expecting, even demanding the government to provide everything we want, just because we rename a service as a right. We want healthcare, so it is now a right the the government must provide.
He would not stand in the way of whole communities and whole states creating their own progressive system. He simply wants the fed to stay out of it.
Voluntary Communal Progressive society will only ever succeed by choice of man, never by force of law in an American two party system.
That is in fact the only way any agenda appeals to me. With we the people doing it together by choice NOT forcing a particular view on another.
Naive?
Perhaps, but NOT out of line with the Constitution which we currently still use in the United States.
If my idea is naive, is the contrary progressive or neo-con forced government not equally flawed in it's use of force to impose an unconstitutional agenda?
2 comments:
Well said! But right now the only institution or collection of capital capable of providing health care to everyone in the country is either the Federal Government, which comes with a few problems, and big business, which chooses not to. Local government, even up to the state level, is not capable of providing for the needs of all of their citizens, and the closer any states gets, the more attractive that state will be for people who are searching for help, deserved or not. They're not capable because they can't afford it without raising taxes, and if they do, people and businesses leave, or at least that's the threat.
We have to change the equation. I would be interested in Ron Paul's position on the following idea: We need a 1% budget surplus at the local, state and federal level. $1 of every $100 dollars that comes in through tax revenue needs to be put into basic savings accounts in local, state or national banks. The banks will make that money available as loans for businesses or mortgages, and it will earn interest. That interest is returned to supplement the budget of that municipality, state or the federal government. Repeat year after year, and the interest will grow to the point that we can reduce taxes, pay off bonds, and build our infrastructure. It will take years and decades to build it up, but if we don't start, we're all going to drown in debt at the local, state AND federal level.
I think Ron Paul is the only Republican who might be willing to even listen to this idea, because it requires us to raise taxes 1% at all levels of government, at least until the balance in the bank is large enough to replace that revenue.
I just watched RON PAUL at Google and he addressed this concern of yours about the affording of healthcare and other services for the poor. I suggest a review of the tape http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg
lastly, we all must work together even if we disagree with each other on some things.
in other words, we have to pick our battles and not rage against each other. ei We can unite on issues such as IRV and election reform. Taking away corporations blank check in elections and returning the power to the voters.
Post a Comment