New Haven Independent

posted by: Paul Maliska on January 10, 2012  1:55pm

I read the books Blowback by Chalmers Johnson and The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin to get an in depth understanding of Ron Paul’s economic and foreign policy views. Ever since I’ve been a believer that his views are spot on.

posted by: William Kurtz on January 10, 2012  2:29pm

Ms. Wolczko has convinced me; if you can’t get political theory from someone who “was going to vote” but “didn’t make it to the polls” who can you get it from? Ron Paul Forever!

posted by: rEVOLution on January 10, 2012  2:29pm

There is a reason Paul has a strong, loyal base. The typical supporter is educated politically and doesn’t just listen to Fox, NBC, CNN, etc. for their info.

He is the most consistent, clear speaking candidate I’ve ever came across. The other candidates (Rep. and Dem.) have a feeling of dishonesty and inconsistency I feel is immediately apparent.

Calling Ron Paul an isolationist, is like calling your neighbor a hermit because he doesn’t come onto your property and break your windows.

Obama has been a continuation of the failed Bush regime. Paul has been proven he can win the Republican nomination as well is very popular with Independent and Democratic voters.

Freedom is popular. Lets go with it.

posted by: rEOVLution on January 10, 2012  2:37pm

and if you think “terrorists"are coming after us for “our freedom”, please watch this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqAF-Alc7CM

and if you’re still okay with our current foreign policy, I can only hope you change your mind soon, and the minds of others around.

The commenters of NHI state we have too much violence on our streets in New Haven, and our young people are gunned down all too often, what makes it any different they’re getting gunned down and maimed in a foreign country serving the agenda of a handful of corporations and war mongers.

posted by: Marylander on January 10, 2012  3:02pm

This is an excellent article. It highlights the conflict between Ron Paul supporters and “regular” people. The battle was not won by Wolczko today as the two undecideds walked away still undecided, and who knows if they’ll ever come to support Ron Paul in the end. But at least a dialogue was opened and the debate continues in their own minds. Hopefully this leads them as well as all Americans to actually do some research, look up Ron Paul’s views, and make their very own informed opinion about his many policies.

For me, simply watching Dr. Paul talk was enough for me to notice how different he is from all other politicians I’ve seen. Where as they are expected to talk with a Hollywood cadence, filled with catch phrases and dramatic gestures, Paul just talks facts to back his position. What it is to debate or argue is lost in this violence-loving country, for insults and exaggerations are the de facto style of persuasion these days. Ron Paul does none of that. He endeavors to be polite, not trying to make enemies but trying to promote understanding. It is so honorable and genuine that it makes other politicians look downright devilish.

Also, Jon Stewart’s Daily Show regularly documents the CONSTANT hypocrisies spouted from government officials.
(sorry if this is double posted)

posted by: Dennis Anton on January 10, 2012  3:05pm

And that’s what this election cycle is really about: Grass-roots activism versus MSM-Corporate double-think, double-speak.
Good people, while not giving in to the fear perpetuated on television, are on the street lighting brushfires of patriotism.
Bravo! Go Ron Paul! The truth shall set us all free, it knows no boundaries, nor class distinctions.

posted by: md24 on January 10, 2012  3:31pm

I wish that the Economic and Foreign Policy elements of Ron Paul didn’t have to come with the socially conservative stuff.  Otherwise, he’d have my independent vote.

posted by: givemeliberty on January 10, 2012  3:42pm

Of course, this guy Tom Auchter, who supports assassinating US citizens, is a defense contractor. Big surprise!

posted by: Carl Goldfield on January 10, 2012  3:46pm

What I find most amazing is that she went from being an Obama supporter to Ron Paul.  This is not the first time I’ve read of this phenomenon. Do these folks pay any attention to what the candidates are saying or do they just vote on transient emotion?

posted by: JAK on January 10, 2012  6:03pm

Ron Paul has an awkward time of it when he is asked if it was a bad thing that government freed the slaves, conducted the Civil War, or enacted civil rights laws in the 1960s.  I for one have no doubt that the south would still to this day be the land of sharecropping if not outright slavery if it wasn’t for government “intrusion” in the free market.

However, Ron Paul is spot on when it comes to the out-of-control fed inflation of our currency as well as the destructive waste of the military industrial complex.

And as rEVOLution posted above, Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist.  He believes in peaceful, fair, robust, open market trading.  THAT is not isolationism.

I will vote for Ron Paul And if he wants more traction, what he should do is speak to the people who fear that without a strident global military the U.S. would be at risk. 

What I would do would be to take half of his proposed $1 trillion in military spending cuts and reinvest it into increased intelligence capabilities.  In other words, amp up our surveillance through manpower and technology and be in a position where we can better be defended against and prepared for the next attack. 

With the exit of our military from most foregin soil, we would certainly remove the largest irritant in the middle east and so the desire on the part of other nations to attack us would be greatly diminished. 

But with our miltary exit, we would also issue a stern warning.  If any state sponsored terrorist, anyone other than a single, lone wolf independent agent were to launch an attack against us, it would be met with an overwhleming military response, resulting in the annihilation of the sponsoring government and probably outright seizure of large territories of the aggressor nation. If we ever again invest in “nation building” overseas, it must be our own.

posted by: SteveOnAvon on January 10, 2012  6:12pm

It says a lot about the comment section on the NHI that there are so many pro-Ron Paul sentiments expressed here vs. the negative comments directed towards labor and progressive movements.

[Editor’s note: The story got picked up by a national Ron Paul website, which brought in Ron Paul supporters from afar.]

posted by: Icarus on January 10, 2012  9:24pm

“What I find most amazing is that she went from being an Obama supporter to Ron Paul.  This is not the first time I’ve read of this phenomenon. Do these folks pay any attention to what the candidates are saying or do they just vote on transient emotion?”

Two different flavors. I voted for Obama in 2008 but am behind Ron Paul this time. Both represent a chance for change, although in my opinion, Obama has failed to implement the change I thought he was capable of.

posted by: rEVOLution on January 10, 2012  11:25pm

Regarding the editor’s note above.

Is it out the realm that NHI readers are also Ron Paul supporters? I understand it was picked up by a Ron Paul site (though there are many, and not by a site I’ve yet to come across) Why does that need to be noted? Or is NHI going to follow the lead of the rest of the mainstream media and attempt to downplay his popularity and ideas.

I understand there would be a lot of people who currently are making a lot of money of the misfortune of the American people who would lose money if he is elected; but I’m fairly sure NHI staff do not fall into that category.

Dr. Ron Paul appeals to people across the board, the comment section here is a good example of that.

posted by: Rosco1776 on January 11, 2012  12:25am

This may help you decide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92OV3RbU3ek

posted by: jaran on January 11, 2012  1:02am

“The reality is that our military presence on foreign soil is as offensive to the people that live there as armed Chinese troops would be if they were stationed in Texas. Shutting down military bases and ceasing to deal with other nations with threats of violence is not isolationism. It is the opposite. Opening ourselves up to friendship, honest trade and diplomacy is the foreign policy of peace and prosperity.” - Ron Paul

posted by: Telsa Rowe on January 11, 2012  3:08am

I voted for Obama in 2008, John Kerry in 2004 and Clinton in 1992. What a fool I have been. A blinded fool. I contributed to this economic disaster as much as any wall street crook or bent politician. I am now a Ron Paul supporter and after studying every candidate in depth see no other alternative. America is in the beginning stages of empire collapse. It may be too late for Ron Paul and his ideology to save us but at least he can give us a fighting chance. Long live the United States of America.

posted by: Per Erlandsson on January 11, 2012  5:17am

“Dear America,

You have finally an honest man with a great deal of integrity as well as intelligence running for the office of the President of the United States. He does not take money from corporations, he cannot be bribed, he speaks his mind, and he tells you the truth even when it’s a truth that is uncomfortable to hear.

If you throw away this opportunity, don’t ever let it be said nobody warned you and that you’re a victim of forces outside of your control. If you don’t elect him, remember that’s the bed you made, and you deserve to lie in it.”

posted by: Jilly4Liberty on January 11, 2012  7:57am

PRESIDENT PAUL!!!

Ron Paul MoneyBomb January 16th- Martin Luther King Junior Day!
Ron Paul will never pander to the corporations, big banks and lobbyists for donations. It is up to WE THE PEOPLE to make sure he can compete to the fullest!

Purchases from the campaign store count as a donation! Mark it on your calendar and spread the word- call your friends and family and urge them to donate!

posted by: SteveOnAvon on January 11, 2012  11:04am

Marylander asks us to research Ron Paul’s views and make up your own mind. I couldn’t agree more. Please do look up his views, which include (and are not limited to): shooting carjacking ‘urban youth’ and fleeing the scene after wiping your prints from your gun, blaming the spread of AIDS on ‘malicious gays’, renaming New York City ‘Welfaria’, ‘Zooville’, ‘Rapetown’, ‘Dirtburg’, or ‘Lazyopolis’, claiming welfare checks ended the 1992 LA riots, calling 95% of black males in DC ‘semi-criminal or entirely criminal’, and combating the ‘federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS’. (http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/01/ron-paul-newsletter-iowa-caucus-republican?page=1)

posted by: MKMN on January 11, 2012  11:08am

“Tom Auchter…an out of work Defense Contractor”.

You don’t have to be a genius to know that Tom’s career is dependent on the War machine and American Interventionism/Nation Building. Therefor his vote is Non Paul.

There are so many companies and politicians who are on the Government Tit in the name of “Defense”. We have a whole subset of the economy suckling at the Government milk. It is sick and wrong. Ron Paul WILL put a stop to it. No others will.

posted by: SteveOnAvon on January 11, 2012  11:13am

Since Jilly4Liberty brought up MLK, I think it’s worth noting that Ron Paul not only voted against MLK Day, but also accused Dr. King of plagiarizing his doctoral dissertation, and called him a “Marxist and world-class adulterer.” (http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/PR_Feb91_p7.pdf)

People who are seriously going out and talking to people about “Ron Paul Revolution” need to take a long, hard look at the man’s newsletters.

posted by: JimInNY on January 11, 2012  11:24am

Paul’s foreign policy is too isolationist, said Tom. “We need to protect the country. We need to protect the world.”

Sometimes I am just plain embarrassed to be American.

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on January 11, 2012  1:28pm

I can’t support Ron Paul for President. While I agree that our foreign activities have unintended consequences and blowback, what does he think will happen if we cut $1 Trillion from the budget in the first year of his presidency? I like his stance on the drug war and legalization, war with Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Israel, his objections to wiretaps without warrants, his stance on torture, being against the power to indefinitely detain US citizens for being suspected terrorists, I agree with his concerns about the Federal Reserve and hyperinflation, his dislike of bail outs and corporatism, and some other positions. However, I can’t support someone who wants to abolish the Departments of Energy and Education, and the EPA.
Unfortunately, there really isn’t an alternative to Paul that is consistent, honest and independent from corporate influence.
My hope is that Ron Paul gains enough exposure and popularity to fundamentally change the conversation in politics, to diversify ideas, to make politicians more honest and representative of citizens.

On the other hand, having a purist president in the White House like Paul along with the corporatist senators and congressmen might not be a bad idea. Some of Paul’s more radical proposals that I don’t support (or think should be done very gradually) might be blocked while his other positions that I do support would get passed. Four years with a real president might be what we need. And maybe during that time politics can change from being the cookie cutter Obama’s and Romney’s into a much more diversified forum with more political parties, real fundamental differences between candidates and fresh new ideas that don’t come from banks or financial institutions.

posted by: streever on January 11, 2012  5:45pm

SteveonAvon
Right on!
While I think Mr. Paul would never describe himself as a racist, it is hard to see how his presidency would not empower and strengthen the institutional racism already present in every level of our government and society.

The man is a nightmare for civil liberties, while simultaneously shouting his support of them from the rooftops.

Ron Paul believes that companies should make all their own decisions in a regulation free zone.

I read a really old article when the Courant put their historical papers online in which the reporter mocked and jeered a young boy (sub teens) who lost his finger in a factory accident, and referred to the boy as an idiot who had hopefully learned his lesson.

Without regulations, children would still be working in factories here—I’m glad we have regulations governing age for employment.

Maybe Ron Paul is correct, and if we eliminate all government support for health care tomorrow, the free market will magically provide a solution for the 15% of people in America living in poverty. ( A sidenote: under Clinton, the poverty rate fell to 10%. Under George Bush, it rose to the highest it had been since his father was in office )

Maybe it is the tepid government support for health care that caused 45,000 deaths due to lack of health care options?

Either way, I think I’ll get my tin foil hat out and vote Ron Paul, because an insane 76 year old who hates the government seems like the only option for President of the United States.

posted by: Icarus on January 11, 2012  7:22pm

Streever,

Ron Paul calls for policy supported by economic principals and theory. Economics is an academic institution just like English, Finance, Psychology, and even Women’s Studies. ...

As such, Ron Paul would not get rid of all regulations as economic principals would not support this. As a matter of fact, much of economics covers regulations which are proven to be ineffective (i.e. rent control) and support those that are effective (i.e. the issue of monopolies). ...

As far as healthcare, that is a complicated issue but neither universal healthcare or a free market system has proven itself to be better at providing QUALITY healthcare for all. That being said, I disagree with Paul on this issue.

Lastly, how does liberty support institutional racism? As a matter of fact, Paul wants to stop the war on drugs which effects minorities to a greater degree than whites and recently discussed during the republican debate his disapproval of the higher   execution rates for minorities than whites on death row.
...

posted by: Leah Wolczko on January 12, 2012  11:24am

Thomas:  It was great meeting you.

posted by: streever on January 12, 2012  2:01pm

Icarus
Racism is supported when policies don’t provide protections for minorities—Paul would eliminate those protections and has been very open about his distaste for them.

The level of racism inherent in our government systems and day to day life is staggering, and we need a government which is willing to tackle this, and actually promote equality.

When you have a one-sided and oppressive system for centuries which disenfranchises women and racial minorities, you have systemic and institutional racism & sexism.

Ron Paul doesn’t see the need for the protections and regulations concerning minorities or women—as such, his presidency would promote sexism and racism.

posted by: JAK on January 12, 2012  2:36pm

So Streever, someone is racist if they want to cut government programs which have only served to create MORE poverty in the minority community?  Hmmm.  That’s quite a low bar to throw around the “R"word, no?

Here’s another take: You’re racist if you continue to support policies that promote economic dependence on the government by minorities.

Liberalism: Institutionalizing the soft bigotry of low expectations.

posted by: Icarus on January 12, 2012  3:29pm

Streever,

Your arguments value good intentions over results. America has tried your route for years and it has not helped. We now have greater inequality than before. Also, the policies you support isolate and define people into groups. Not surprising that this creates animosity. See the ignorant rants by suburbanites against New Haven and the ignorant rants of New Haven against Suburbanites.

America can either look back at our mistakes and continue to beat ourselves up and try to reverse them or instead look forward and institute the best policies. I argue that the current policies are not working economically, culturally, or racially. Ron Paul stands behind an academic institution while the policies we currently have are superficial, ineffective, and at best not proven successful. How is that racism?

posted by: streever on January 12, 2012  3:30pm

Jak
Do you have any statistics to cite showing that liberal tax policies—i.e. progressive taxation in which the wealthy are more heavily taxed than the poor and social services are readily available to low-income citizens—are destructive to low-income citizens?

I feel like there is an entire continent on this planet that would disagree with you, whereas in America many would agree with you and we are looking at an ever increasing wealth disparity as we continue to move toward more conservative or libertarian tax policies.

Racism isn’t a strong word—it is how one defines the current situation in our country. We live in a nation that is full of individuals and systems which actively disenfranchise individuals on the basis of race.

A black man with no felony conviction has the same odds of being hired as a white man with a felony conviction and equivalent educational background.

If the President of the United States actively opposes federal regulations mandating the employment of minorities, than yes, they will be supporting systemic and institutional racism.

Would Mr. Paul—or his supporters—describe that as racism? No, because it is systemic or institutional racism—not individual or personal. It is supporting a system which is inherently biased, and biased against individuals based on their race, hence, it is racism.

The concentration of wealth in white majority public schools versus black majority public schools is another example of institutional racism—it is the very nature of how wealth is divided in this country that this is the situation.

Get it? No one is making a conscious decision to under fund black majority public schools, but the way that school funding is handled is in and of itself disproportionately in favor of whites.

That is what institutional racism refers to, and because Paul Ryan does not believe in institutional racism, yes, his presidency would have a racist impact.

posted by: JAK on January 12, 2012  4:34pm

Streever,

So ... people who do not support subsidies, set-asides, welfare, affirmative action - but who otherwise believe and act in a way that is not discriminating against minorities - are supportive of institutional racism? ...

And what are you referencing when you talk about the concentration of wealth in white majority schools?  CT. spends far more per pupil on average than the white suburban or rural schools do.  New Haven spends about $16k per student not including capital cost for bonding.  A town like Madison spends less than $12K.  What disparity in school wealth are you referring?

And to your first question, New Haven is a prime example of the “progressive” state in action.  Due to the large tax exemptions for institutional not-for-profits and the large population of rent payers among New Haven citizenry, New Haven’s tax burden is disproportionately borne by middle and upper middle class homeowners.  Add state income tax on top of the property tax plus a cottage industry of social service providers which give out free food, free housing, free schooling, free diapers, free transportation, free health services, free counseling, etc., and you have a city with a major progressivity factor and yet our poverty rate is over 30% and hasn’t moved much in decades.  The progressive experiment has failed.

posted by: streever on January 12, 2012  4:36pm

Icarus
... the policies I speak of are just ideas and not implemented.

Social welfare programs are under attack and are not growing substantially, we do not have a comprehensive affordable health care system focused on prevention for all, and the wealthy pay ever lower taxes.

In Connecticut—for example—the wealthy pay a lower percentage than the working poor.

How is that liberal or progressive? It isn’t—our tax systems are conservative and regressive, and that is what has us at this level of disparity and inequality.

posted by: streever on January 12, 2012  4:55pm

Jak
Institutional racism literally refers to racism that is not personally directed, but caused by inherent realities and systems that self-perpetuate—which is what I posted before—so I’m a bit confused by your question. I can suggest reading “Racism without racists: Institutional racism in urban schools” if you seek clarity on how it works.

A question: where are you getting your CT economic information? It directly clashes with every study I’ve seen to date.

The only reports I’ve seen show that the poorest pay a disproportionately high tax rate in CT. Not sure how that is “liberal” or how it shows that liberal policies have failed—you may read the report here: http://ctkidslink.org/pub_detail_553.html

The “99%” in CT pay up to 12%, but the “1%” pay under 6% of their income.

When low-income wage earners pay a higher share than the uber-wealthy, I’m more than puzzled as to how you can label the tax policies in CT as “progressive” and “liberal”. Would a conservative tax policy be to tax the wealthy more? If so, sign me up.

I’m also puzzled by your depiction of CT as a liberal hotbed of governance. Did you know? Connecticut was governed by a Republican for 21 years pre-Malloy’s recent victory.

posted by: RobNewHaven on January 12, 2012  5:20pm

Streever,

I have read your posts for a long time and I don’t always agree with you but I have to commend your courage and composure this time around. As a historian, I know that in the larger scope a lot of what you say is true and I appreciate you standing up for that.

I have to admit that I think the Ron Paul furor, along with the previous Obama furor, is not a terrible thing for politics in this country. I’m glad that people are more interested and more involved. The only issue I would take is the same argument that we in CT make about the tea party (although it can be said of most any modern movement). We can’t get so close to the issue that we can’t be objective and our passion would do well to be tempered by reading a little classical literature now and then. It’s a lot to ask but it makes for a much more interesting conversation.

posted by: Icarus on January 12, 2012  5:30pm

Streever,

If you do not support Ron Paul, that is fine. Many of the arguments you make are fair and reasonable (on healthcare, for example) and whether I agree with them or not is a matter of opinion. On the other hand, to say Ron Paul’s policies are racist is bogus. Just because you do not agree with them does not make them racist. Many would argue his policies largely ignore race and that many of the current policies (including affirmative action) actually promote racial discrimination. That being said, I do not call advocates of affirmative action racist because I do not like the policy. Its called agreeing to disagree without insulting the other person by calling them a racist.

posted by: SteveOnAvon on January 12, 2012  5:34pm

@ JAK,

How in the world does New Haven have a progressive tax structure? In the middle of the city you have a global institution with $20 billion+ endowment (not including funds such as Yale Tomorrow which raised another $3.88 billion) that is tax-exempt due to its non-profit status. That institution is also the city’s largest employer. If Yale were to carry its fair share of the tax burden in the city of New Haven, the absurdity of people paying $8,000 in property taxes on a $300,000 home could be eliminated. As it stands, the city of New Haven is basically a company town, which is about as far as you can get from ‘progressive’.

While Streever has made good points in the past about how the city could be considerably more functional even without addressing its relationship with Yale, I still see them as inseparable issues. I will bet any amount of money that DeStefano takes a Yale-related job when he leaves office, hopefully because the city stands up and kicks him out. Levin is a major decision maker in the city, and he needs to start to be called out on it the way people are expressing their dissatisfaction with DeStefano.

posted by: streever on January 12, 2012  8:27pm

Well said Steve, and thank you, Rob—I agree with you as well.

Icarus
I’m not sure why the censors aren’t editing you, because for all the politeness and diplomacy and restraint I’m indulging you with, you are definitely making personal attacks and trying to twist my words and portray them as some intolerant angry attack.

I’m not “accusing” anyone of racism, but pointing out a well-established fact, supported by science and a bevy of studies, that the failure to address institutional racism does indeed enable it. Eliminating policies which prevent racism do allow racism to thrive and flourish. I’m not attacking you or trying to hurt your feelings, and I’m sorry I seem to have touched a nerve and gotten your back up on this, I truly am. I’d much rather discuss the actual facts and objective history than read mis-characterizations of everything I say.

As I asked thrice, please, show me the studies, show me the research, show me anything peer-reviewed and accepted by modern sociology or economics theory that establishes your case. I’ve linked studies and explained this without personally attacking you, and I do expect a similar level of seriousness if you are going to engage me in this discussion.

(I have a sneaking suspicion this comment will be edited to nonsense, in which case, don’t post it at all—I’d rather just let someone have the last say then see my valid points turned into mush by a moderator who decided to get involved a little too late in the game)

posted by: Icarus on January 13, 2012  12:14am

Strove,

...  Here is one link in particular:

http://www.brynmawr.edu/socialwork/GSSW/schram/ajs.pdf

Honestly, it should be no surprise that there are many journal articles supporting my points and just as many supporting yours. We can both find enough facts to support our points….

posted by: HhE on January 13, 2012  2:08am

Well said Streever and Jonathan Hopkins.  Well said most everyone else too.  One of the really good things Ron Paul’s campaign has done has been to bring note to the trampling of Constitutionally guaranteed rights by both parties—both which favor big government and greater control over people.

posted by: streever on January 13, 2012  10:20am

Icarus
... Your study directly contradicts your own views on this.
A quick example:
“the age of Jim Crow is a distant memory, de jure discrimination is banned, and norms of racial equality are widely embraced (Mendelberg 2001). In this post–civil rights context”

Civil rights are granted and racism is gone—yeah!

Except, of course, the problem that the same study points out—which is that racial equality has not been achieved, and we have institutional racism in this country.

While you can criticize ANY of the current approaches to solving racism—and I do—you really can’t say that doing nothing to prevent institutional racism from affecting individuals is the “best” course of action or would improve racial inequality.

Who is going to address institutional racism in Ron Paul’s world, where the government will no longer even collect the data on it?

This is a serious question, Icarus—I understand why people are excited for Paul, and I can see it, but they are overlooking enormous social issues in their fervor. I really think that leaving issues of social equality and justice to corporations is quite possibly the worst idea I have ever heard.

I don’t think you can point to a single nation on earth where this approach has worked.
Proponents of civil liberties and the civil rights act (such as the authors of your study, who conclude that government intervention solved many racial inequalities 50 years ago), CAN point to places where government intervention has been successful.

As I said, the authors of the study you post point to places where government intervention has been successful.

How you conclude from reading that paper that Ron Paul’s “free market” approach to addressing racism is beyond me, but I look forward to some practical solutions.

posted by: streever on January 13, 2012  10:29am

I’m sorry, one more example from your paper.

“Prior research has shown that states have been significantly more likely to adopt the strictest TANF sanction policies if they have higher proportions of nonwhite recipients (Soss et al. 2001; Fellowes and Rowe 2004).
In addition, a casual inspection of government records suggests that such racial dynamics may characterize the sanction implementation process as well”

I think you’ve misread the paper, which quite clearly outlines that institutional racism exists and is alive and well. In fact, above, it points to the TANF sanctions which were pushed by Conservatives, and have been demonstrated to cause extreme harm principally to minorities, because of state policies to apply the sanctions only if a large percentage of minorities are on TANF vs whites.

Welfare is not a liberal policy—welfare is a large and comprehensive program which you probably have benefited from at some point (do you have elderly relatives who collect social security? Medicare, Medicaid? What about disability? Under a true libertarian government, you’d get to pay all of your progenitors healthcare and “pension”.)

What—precisely—would we do about people who lose the ability to work due to an industrial accident at their workplace in Ron Paul’s America?

What do we do about elderly people who don’t have families to support them? Do we let them die, as many tea party members chanted at a political rally?

The politics of Ron Paul are the politics of Ayn Rand (a recipient of welfare), and turning a shoulder to the downtrodden isn’t something I support. At the end of the day, compassionate people have to ask themselves, who is going to provide for those who have it worse than I do?

Under Ron Paul, the answer is “let them die”. Not a very inspiring message.

I think I’ll pass on the Paul fervor, but thank you for trying to convince me.