http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-closes-in-on-gingrich.html

About Ron Paul...One time Libertarian candidate, 1988....Against gun control, the death penalty, the CIA, the Civil Rights Act, prosecuting flag burners, hate crime legalization, foreign aid, military draft under ANY circumstances, campaign finance reform, war on drugs, war on terror, and war on porn....

He wants to totally dismantle the welfare state...

He believes life begins at conception...

He supports free trade agreements, but votes against them....

He's know for adding earmarks to the same spending bills he votes against...

He is anti military and favors non intervention to equal unilateral disarmament...

Paul is an IMPERFECT MESSENGER for small government....

How misinformed can one person be?

As with the MSM where you must get your info, you mince his words to fit your mindset. You have no clue at all to his views or you fail to research them.

He has views on these things and more, but you obviously don't have a clue what they are.

Yes I do.... We agree to disagree is all...

Immigration and the Welfare State

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD


More and more of my constituents are asking me when Congress will address the problem of illegal immigration. The public correctly perceives that neither political party has the courage to do what is necessary to prevent further erosion of both our border security and our national identity. As a result, immigration may be the sleeper issue that decides the presidential election.

The problem of illegal immigration will not be solved easily, but we can start by recognizing that the overwhelming majority of Americans — including immigrants — want immigration reduced, not expanded.

Amnesty for illegal immigrants is not the answer. Millions of people who broke the law by entering, staying, and working in our country illegally should not be rewarded with a visa. Why should lawbreakers obtain a free pass, while those seeking to immigrate legally face years of paperwork and long waits for a visa?

We must end welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants. Some illegal immigrants — certainly not all — receive housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical care, and other forms of welfare. This alienates taxpayers and breeds suspicion of immigrants, even though the majority of them work very hard. Without a welfare state, we would know that everyone coming to America wanted to work hard and support himself.

Our current welfare system also encourages illegal immigration by discouraging American citizens from taking low-wage jobs. This creates greater demand for illegal foreign labor. Welfare programs and minimum wage laws create an artificial market for labor to do the jobs Americans supposedly won't do.

Illegal immigrants also place a tremendous strain on social entitlement programs. Under a proposed totalization agreement with Mexico, millions of illegal immigrants will qualify for Social Security and other programs — programs that already threaten financial ruin for America in the coming decades. Adding millions of foreign citizens to the Social Security, Medicare, and disability rolls will only hasten the inevitable day of reckoning.

Economic considerations aside, we must address the cultural aspects of immigration. The vast majority of Americans welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. But we rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally. All federal government business should be conducted in English. More importantly, we should expect immigrants to learn about and respect our political and legal traditions, which are rooted in liberty and constitutionally limited government.

Our most important task is to focus on effectively patrolling our borders. With our virtually unguarded borders, almost any determined individual — including a potential terrorist — can enter the United States. Unfortunately, the federal government seems more intent upon guarding the borders of other nations than our own. We are still patrolling Korea's border after some 50 years, yet ours are more porous than ever. It is ironic that we criticize Syria for failing to secure its border with Iraq while our own borders, particularly to the south, are no better secured than those of Syria.

We need to allocate far more of our resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.

If we took some of the steps I have outlined here — eliminating the welfare state and securing our borders — we could effectively address the problem of illegal immigration in a manner that would not undermine the freedom of American citizens. Sadly, it appears we are moving toward policies like a national ID that diminish our liberties. Like gun control, these approaches only punish the innocent, as criminals will always find a way around the law.

August 9, 2005

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Oppose the Federal Welfare State

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD


Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, February 13, 2003

Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that welfare programs have undermined America's moral fabric and constitutional system. Therefore, all those concerned with restoring liberty and protecting civil society from the maw of the omnipotent state should support efforts to eliminate the welfare state, or, at the very least, reduce federal control over the provision of social services. Unfortunately, the misnamed Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act (H.R. 4) actually increases the unconstitutional federal welfare state and thus undermines personal responsibility, the work ethic, and the family.

H.R. 4 reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grant program, the main federal welfare program. Mr. Speaker, increasing federal funds always increases federal control, as the recipients of the funds must tailor their programs to meet federal mandates and regulations. More importantly, since federal funds represent resources taken out of the hands of private individuals, increasing federal funding leaves fewer resources available for the voluntary provision of social services, which, as I will explain in more detail later, is a more effective, moral, and constitutional means of meeting the needs of the poor.

H.R. 4 further increases federal control over welfare policy by increasing federal mandates on welfare recipients. This bill even goes so far as to dictate to states how they must spend their own funds! Many of the new mandates imposed by this legislation concern work requirements. Of course, Mr. Speaker, there is a sound argument for requiring recipients of welfare benefits to work. Among other benefits, a work requirement can help welfare recipients obtain useful job skills and thus increase the likelihood that they will find productive employment. However, forcing welfare recipients to work does raise valid concerns regarding how much control over one's life should be ceded to the government in exchange for government benefits.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, it is highly unlikely that a "one-size-fits-all'' approach dictated from Washington will meet the diverse needs of every welfare recipient in every state and locality in the nation. Proponents of this bill claim to support allowing states, localities, and private charities the flexibility to design welfare-to-work programs that fit their particular circumstances. Yet, this proposal constricts the ability of the states to design welfare-to-work programs that meet the unique needs of their citizens. I also question the wisdom of imposing as much as $11 billion in unfunded mandates on the states at a time when many are facing a fiscal crisis.

As former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura pointed out in reference to this proposal's effects on Minnesota's welfare-to-welfare work program, "We know what we are doing in Minnesota works. We have evidence. And our way of doing things has broad support in the state. Why should we be forced by the federal government to put our system at risk?'' Why indeed, Mr. Speaker, should any state be forced to abandon its individual welfare programs because a group of self-appointed experts in Congress, the federal bureaucracy, and inside-the-beltway think tanks have decided there is only one correct way to transition people from welfare to work?

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4 further expands the reach of the federal government by authorizing approximately $10 million dollars for new "marriage promotion'' programs. I certainly recognize how the welfare state has contributed to the decline of the institution of marriage. As an ob-gyn with over 30 years of private practice, I know better than most the importance of stable, two parent families to a healthy society. However, I am skeptical, to say the least, of claims that government education programs can fix the deep-rooted cultural problems responsible for the decline of the American family.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, federal promotion of marriage opens the door for a level of social engineering that should worry all those concerned with preserving a free society. The federal government has no constitutional authority to promote any particular social arrangement; instead, the founders recognized that people are better off when they form their own social arrangements free from federal interference. The history of the failed experiments with welfarism and socialism shows that government can only destroy a culture; when a government tries to build a culture, it only further erodes the people's liberty.

H.R. 4 further raises serious privacy concerns by expanding the use of the "New Hires Database" to allow states to use the database to verify unemployment claims. The New Hires Database contains the name and social security number of everyone lawfully employed in the United States. Increasing the states' ability to identify fraudulent unemployment claims is a worthwhile public policy goal. However, every time Congress authorizes a new use for the New Hires Database it takes a step toward transforming it into a universal national database that can be used by government officials to monitor the lives of American citizens.

As with all proponents of welfare programs, the supporters of H.R. 4 show a remarkable lack of trust in the American people. They would have us believe that without the federal government, the lives of the poor would be "nasty, brutish and short." However, as scholar Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation and others have shown, voluntary charities and organizations, such as friendly societies that devoted themselves to helping those in need, flourished in the days before the welfare state turned charity into a government function.

Today, government welfare programs have supplemented the old-style private programs. One major reason for this is that the policies of high taxes and inflationary Federal Reserve money imposed on the American people in order to finance the welfare state have reduced the income available for charitable giving. Many over-taxed Americans take the attitude toward private charity that "I give at the (tax) office."

Releasing the charitable impulses of the American people by freeing them from the excessive tax burden so they can devote more of their resources to charity, is a moral and constitutional means of helping the needy. By contrast, the federal welfare state is neither moral nor constitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to levy excessive taxes on one group of citizens for the benefit of another group of citizens. Many of the founders would have been horrified to see modern politicians define compassion as giving away other people's money stolen through confiscatory taxation. In the words of the famous essay by former Congressman Davy Crockett, this money is "Not Yours to Give.''

Voluntary charities also promote self-reliance, but government welfare programs foster dependency. In fact, it is in the self-interest of the bureaucrats and politicians who control the welfare state to encourage dependency. After all, when a private organization moves a person off welfare, the organization has fulfilled its mission and proved its worth to donors. In contrast, when people leave government welfare programs, they have deprived federal bureaucrats of power and of a justification for a larger amount of taxpayer funding.

In conclusion, H.R. 4 furthers federal control over welfare programs by imposing new mandates on the states, which furthers unconstitutional interference in matters best left to state and local governments, and individuals. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose it. Instead, I hope my colleagues will learn the lessons of the failure of the welfare state and embrace a constitutional and compassionate agenda of returning control over the welfare programs to the American people.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

I am all for free trade, but the agreements we are in should be called "Take American Jobs for Free" agreements.

We have lost over 3 million jobs because of NAFTA.

What good does having free trade agreements with countries that have populations that can't afford to buy your products?

We just agreed to a free trade deal with Colombia..

They rank 82nd in the world in GDP per capita..

How many $40,000 Chevy Volts are we going to be selling them?


You have to take who the partners are into context.

No would have been my vote.. It makes no sense..

Paul simply applies a central libertarian axiom to each issue....Applied properly and with logic, Paul comes out with a libertarian position 100% of the time....

Far right on economic policy?

Far left on foreign policy?

Two economists who are the favorites of Ron Paul are the Jewish intellectuals Murray N. Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises. Ron Paul never tires of citing them when he discusses not only economic subjects such as money, the business cycle, unemployment, Austrian economics, but also, ethics, liberty, freedom. These two are his greatest intellectual and moral influences.

And what of his foreign policy? He wants to end ALL foreign aid! Why should we be supporting other countries who consistently vote against us? Why not help our own nation, use those funds to help our economy, put Americans back to work, ease our tax burdens? How can ANY AMERICAN think that's bad policy?

You have to look at conservatives from a historical perspective to understand his positions on foreign policy.

Conservatives have always been in favor of isolationist and non interventionist foreign policy.

You can look at the 20th century and see that all the major wars we were in came out of Liberal Democrat administrations. Conservatives were the ones that opposed WW1 WW2(European Theater) Korea and Vietnam.

It wasn't until the moral majority began wielding power in the Republican primaries in the late 70s that the party moved to a more aggressive foreign policy approach.

I have always found that to be a huge mistake.

When Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex taking over the government he knew that interventionist policy would lead to financial ruination.

The liberals in America love linking the NEO Cons to the real conservatives and always neglect to mention that the NEO Cons got their start as Marxist Democrats that became disaffected and started their own pro war pro spending faction.

They have taken hold of the Republican party by pushing moral issues and convincing people that we have certain friends and enemies that need to dealt with because of religious differences.

Paul is an old school conservative.

I give him credit for believing and saying what he does.

His candidacy allows those of us that have always believed in and followed the principles of a non interventionist foreign policy to turn on the lights and expose the usurpers for what they are.

Pro War/ big spending/ big government progressives

I am not against everything Paul advocates, I am not for everything he advocates...I am leery (that's putting it mildly) about the support he gets from the younger voters, we have been down that road with Obama...One thing to consider is the time element needed to achieve his goals...Also, foreign policy and economic policy are linked...National security is now a much more involved and complicated issue thanks to terrorist mentality.....Paul's age is a huge consideration for me...He is a great messenger, but I do not want to see him elected....I whole heartedly believe we need a two term President this time, four years is not enough time to right the wrongs and get American back on track....Paul is too old for the job that HE is advocating....

Ron Paul won't live for ever, nor will you or I, but if elected, and even if not, his message, like that of our founding fathers, will.

Each Presidency has been a continuation of the last, and NOT for the better! It is time for change, REAL change, and RP has consistency that has been ignored for 30 years, but is now what is becoming the view of more and more people!

We are tired of the war machine, wall street and the bankers view of what is best for us! They haven't a clue how the other 99% suffer, nor do they care!

RP is the 1st step to restoring our republic! It won't happen overnight, but it HAS to happen!

As far as the young...... we are sooooooooooo in debt to the central banking cartel that we are spending their future! Of course they want change, and they KNOW RP can begin to make that happen.

His policies HAVE NEVER changed, he can't be bought, and 30 years of consistency PROVES that!

Also....war is NOT policy....it's a death sentence for EVERY empire that has ever accepted it trying to nation build!

The latest example we can ALL remember..... the USSR.... in the same region of the world!

Of course no one lives forever Yes, we hope the message of our founding fathers lives forever..
Youth voted change the last time, they were wrong...They lack experience and, thanks in part to today mentality, they are not ready to take care of business...By that I mean THEIR business....
War??? A necessary evil...it is how we fight that matters...it is the principal it is based upon that matters....
We cannot afford to be idealistic, only realistic....

In King Barry's case..... Faux News and the MSM (with the help of wall street) sold him to an uninformed throng of young voters. It sure wasn't his record of accomplishments that got him (or Bush) elected! Those times have changed! The youth of today is awake to the issues. Many are still in the learning process, but they are eager to know the reasons for their plight, so they research, and accept the rationalities of RP. No more worries there than from the xanax generation that supported Bush/Cheney!

War has it's place.....DEFENSE.....which RP wants to strengthen, NOT cut!

Premption is BAD policy! That's what we pay the CIA, FBI and DHS spies for..... to ACTUALLY do their job! If they don't, and the MSM doesn't get back to ACTUALLY and FACTUALLY reporting REAL news, then like Rupert Murdoch and FAUX, they need to be replaced, or reinvented!

For the record life begins when I show up at the party.

remember.....no more day after pill......daddy

I agree with you on the age factor. However, I believe that this debate on foreign policy opens the door for his son Rand to be a very successful candidate in the future if he so chooses to run.

Which I think he will..

Name dropping and critiquing news sources won't help you cause with me....The youth of today is no more or no less "awake" than the youth of yesterday...They understand the issues, they want them fixed, problem is they don't know how to get the job done...i.e. Obama... Yes they are learning and they need to continue to do so...they are not ready to take over....Xanax generation is nothing more than an exaggerated "buzz" phrase....No, not strengthen defense...Paul wants to pull troops from EVERYWHERE and place them here because he has an isolationist mentality....
And as far as the CIA and FBI, if Paul has his way they won't exist...

Also, do you really believe you are the only person capable of deciphering real news from faux news, notice I DID NOT capitalize the word faux...

He's 76, flies his own plane, hits the campaign trail harder than those younger, ans still the sharpest tack in the box.

No worries about this old war horse! He has no vices to cause him ill..... and he is a Dr

Yes, perhaps he should stick to gynecology, more realistic.....