Paul says (regarding on Social Security) “We didn't have it (Social Security) until 1935. I mean, do you read stories about how many people were laying in the streets and dying and didn't have medical treatment?...Prices were low and the country was productive and families took care of themselves and churches built hospitals and there was no starvation."
Well. good Gawd, man, read a book!. How stupid are you? Ever hear of freaking sweat shops, shooting poor people and vets who asked for housing at a public protest site called Hooverville? Paul ignores the historical fact of families that had literally no cash and had to beg for work or else get into a soup line when there was no welfare with which to feed their families. Even to get the most minimal life necessities, people lived in train boxcars, in tiny, little roach infested rooms that were ill-heated and ill-ventilated. They were sick all the time, and had holes in their clothing.
Paul considers Medicare and Medicaid to be unconstitutional.
He says he thinks “it's a flaw in the perfect society I would like to see where individuals take care of themselves.” Yeah, that’s right, genius. Elderly people on their last legs, people hurt in accidents, people with terminal illnesses, people who are mentally challenged should just get out and ‘take care of themselves’ when they have terminal cancer, their heart is failing or they’re lying bedfast with any number of illnesses. Just tough love for them if there’s no rich family around to care for them. right?. Any student of history knows our country used to live under those conditions BEFORE Medicare. During the Great Depression, those who weren’t fortunate enough to have well enough off family to nurse them just died younger than they needed to, for lack of money for medical care, and they often suffered alone in some tenement, back alley or charity hospital.
Again, Paulites, why is book larnin’ Paul’s enemy?. He avoids reading history like the plague, even if he is supposed to be a doctor.
I don’t know about you, but now that I think of it, how’d you like your doctor to tell you, if you’ve no insurance and no coverage to just ‘buck up’ and get out of my office and stop being sick! Just take care of yourself the best you can, bum! And since you can’t pay, be sure to have a nice death. What kind of a physician would you want that had an attitude like “Dr.Paul’s?” Ever hear of the word ‘quack’? And I don’t mean we’re talking about ‘Aflac’.
As far as Paul’s choices for Vice President, he thinks “John Stossel would be good.” Oh my Gosh! John Stossel? Are you kidding me? It’s like a sketch on Saturday Night Live picking a Veep with a mustsche like Saddam’s and with an attitude like Dennis Miller’s! Right-wing solutions to all his “investigative” reporting (John Stoessel). John Stoessel is an idiot.
Hey, here’s one: How about aid to poor countries?
Paul is against the government's "delusional, feel-good" practice of giving aid to destitute, disease-ridden countries like some we see in Africa. I guess if our government didn’t help pay for AIDS prevention and starvation prevention, then we could just count on private citizens and private groups giving charity. Yeah right. Is that why these groups have eliminated poverty even here in the good old USA?
He has written that Americans "don't need to be forced to pay for foreign welfare at the barrel of a government gun." Well, I guess other countries don’t need to participate in UN peace keeping either, nor do they need to waste their tax money helping us fight terrorism either, do they? Ron Paul is not too realistic.
To be sure, even though government corruption may be a problem in many of these countries (but not in ours of course) I guess if we just give nothing. then magically AIDS, poverty, starvation and other ills will just work themselves out, right?
Now let’s look at his voting record.
Sure, he voted against the war. Well, now, in context, that isn’t saying much when you realize he votes against everything. His nickname is “Dr. No.” Of course, if all the passionate supporters of Paul would spend more time investigating all his congressional activities, they would find a lot more to seriously question. A chief example is that he has routinely inserted earmarks for pork spending to make constituents in his district happy. Then he hides behind his votes against the spending bills containing his earmark spending items. But those earmarks remain in those spending bills passed by Congress. Tell me, is that really virtuous behavior? His earmarks increase federal activities and spending. Many have been for projects by the Army Corps of Engineers, many to funnel money to the Texas Department of Transportation (including one for repairs to the Galveston Trolley system), and one for Texas A&M University/Galveston Campus to convert the Texas Clipper for educational purposes; maybe this was the $30 million for the Texas Maritime Academy to refurbish a ship. And then there was the $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing. This seems like pretty conventional Republican politics. This year Paul has requested about $400 million worth of federal spending for his district – not exactly consistent with Paul's rhetoric on reducing federal spending and taxing. I don’t see Dr. Paul informing his constituents about the wrongness of earmarks. He capitulates to their requests.
He voted no on establishing a nationwide Amber alert system for missing kids. He voted against hurricane relief funding, even though most of his district is on the Texas gulf coast. He voted no on allowing human embryonic stem cell research.
All of those are obviously terrible things and should not be funded. I mean, who wants to save kidnapped kids who are about to be raped and murdered?
He did vote yes on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (Remember, teen pregnancy, AIDS, and kidnapped kids will all just work themselves out) Paul also supports a constitutional amendment to let prayer into schools. Which religion will get THEIR prayer put in there?
