Saturday, December 29, 2007
Friday, December 28, 2007
A Letter of Apology to Paul Supporters
This is a letter to the paper from local resident, Jeff, after my response to his first letter to the paper. I was very gratified by this letter. Jeff surprised me with his humility and his open-mindedness. Honestly, I had him figured from his first letter as closed-minded and arrogant, and was really responding to his first letter for the possible benefit of others, never dreaming that the ostensible recipient of my letter would re-think his position and even apologize for his hasty assumptions. Here it is:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to Mr. J, his wife Candace, and any other Ron Paul supporters who took offense at my insinuation that they are not promoting Ron Paul's position on the Iraq war because it is difficult to face being labeled "anti-patriotic" or "against the soldiers." I was both unfair and wrong. Mr. and Mrs. J, as well as many other Ron Paul supporters, are taking a very courageous public stand in opposing this war, and I would like to applaud them for that.
Mr. J was right - I did not see his wife's first letter to the Star. I also appreciated Mr. J.'s very clearly articulated letter about where Ron Paul stands on the Iraq war, as well as detailing the policy failures of both major political parties on this issue. I certainly do not need to lecture Ron Paul or his supporters about American foreign policy.
In my letter, I argued for a position that we as citizens must compromise and support our government (and its policies and programs), because we "can't always get what we want." That isn't compromise - it's surrender. It is also immoral and unethical. We need to stand up and fight for what we believe, even in the face of an overwhelming majority; especially in the face of an overwhelming majority.
Being in the majority may give people a sense of security or belonging, but it doesn't necessarily give them the advantage of being right. Ron Paul's website ronpaulforpresident2008.com contains a quote from Sam Adams that states,
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
This website contains what Ron Paul believes about many issues facing our nation today. Ron Paul's courageous stand on the Iraq war and on many other issues in the face of an overwhelming majority, and his supporter's eloquent presentations of his beliefs on the issues, has succeeded in lighting a fire in my mind. I'll also certainly be watching "Meet the PRess" this Sunday to find out more about Ron Paul.
I am certain that I do not agree with Ron Paul and his supporters on every issue, maybe not even most. I'm not convinced that Ron Paul will get my vote, or that he can win the election. But thanks to Mr. J's letter, and Ron Paul's integrity on many issues, I am at least willing to listen with an open mind now. I hope many others are willing to do the same.
I was wrong to vow never to vote for a Republican from texas, based on this nation's experience over the last seven years. Ron Paul cannot be lumped in with our current president, or any other GOP candidate for that matter. I know that Ron Paul will say what he truly believes and fight for it, and not simply advance some slick political message for the purpose of garnering the most votes. In this day and age, that is something worth taking note of.
Jeff S
Smallville
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to Mr. J, his wife Candace, and any other Ron Paul supporters who took offense at my insinuation that they are not promoting Ron Paul's position on the Iraq war because it is difficult to face being labeled "anti-patriotic" or "against the soldiers." I was both unfair and wrong. Mr. and Mrs. J, as well as many other Ron Paul supporters, are taking a very courageous public stand in opposing this war, and I would like to applaud them for that.
Mr. J was right - I did not see his wife's first letter to the Star. I also appreciated Mr. J.'s very clearly articulated letter about where Ron Paul stands on the Iraq war, as well as detailing the policy failures of both major political parties on this issue. I certainly do not need to lecture Ron Paul or his supporters about American foreign policy.
In my letter, I argued for a position that we as citizens must compromise and support our government (and its policies and programs), because we "can't always get what we want." That isn't compromise - it's surrender. It is also immoral and unethical. We need to stand up and fight for what we believe, even in the face of an overwhelming majority; especially in the face of an overwhelming majority.
Being in the majority may give people a sense of security or belonging, but it doesn't necessarily give them the advantage of being right. Ron Paul's website ronpaulforpresident2008.com contains a quote from Sam Adams that states,
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
This website contains what Ron Paul believes about many issues facing our nation today. Ron Paul's courageous stand on the Iraq war and on many other issues in the face of an overwhelming majority, and his supporter's eloquent presentations of his beliefs on the issues, has succeeded in lighting a fire in my mind. I'll also certainly be watching "Meet the PRess" this Sunday to find out more about Ron Paul.
I am certain that I do not agree with Ron Paul and his supporters on every issue, maybe not even most. I'm not convinced that Ron Paul will get my vote, or that he can win the election. But thanks to Mr. J's letter, and Ron Paul's integrity on many issues, I am at least willing to listen with an open mind now. I hope many others are willing to do the same.
I was wrong to vow never to vote for a Republican from texas, based on this nation's experience over the last seven years. Ron Paul cannot be lumped in with our current president, or any other GOP candidate for that matter. I know that Ron Paul will say what he truly believes and fight for it, and not simply advance some slick political message for the purpose of garnering the most votes. In this day and age, that is something worth taking note of.
Jeff S
Smallville
Thursday, December 27, 2007
My response to a letter in the local paper about RP
This is my response to Jeff, a local resident who wrote a letter to the newspaper as a reaction to one of my wife's letters about Ron Paul:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From his letter to the Editor in the December 12th issue of this newspaper, it appears that Mr. Jeff S**** jumped into a discussion without reading the original letters which spawned the discussion, while presuming, for some reason, that he was coming in on the beginning of the discussion. He seems to think that the letter written by my articulate (if I may say so) wife, Candace J, and another letter written by another articulate supporter of Ron Paul in Smallville, regarding Paul's positions on Social Security, were the only letters written in support of Dr. Paul.
In fact, my wife had previously written a letter in support of Ron Paul, in which she mentioned his position on almost every matter, including foreign policy, which is one of the foundations of his run for the presidency. Being limited by space and time, Mrs. J could not mention every subject under the sun, and did not touch on Paul's stance on Social Security. In a letter to the Star, a resident of Bourbon pointed out this omission by Mrs. J. The letters to which Mr. S**** refers were written in response to this letter from the resident of B******, and are therefore on the one subject of Social Security.
Most supporters of Ron Paul see Social Security for the Ponze scheme that it is, but that doesn't mean we "conclude that the most pressing issue is how to fund Social Security," as Mr. S**** writes. That was his conclusion, based on coming in late in the discussion without noticing that other letters had led to the discussion of Social Security.
Mr. S****'s insinuation that my wife or any other supporter of Ron Paul does not promote some of Paul's stances because they are afraid of being labeled as "anti-patriotic" shows not only that he never read the first letter to this paper written by my wife, but that he is not paying any attention to even mainstream news stories about Ron Paul's campaign, and what his supporters are saying. Opposition to the war is one of the constant themes of the Ron Paul campaign, and I know of no supporter of Paul that is the least bit afraid of being labeled "anti-patriotic" by promoting this position, although I do know some Paul supporters that don't share his opposition to the war.
I also find it ironic that Mr. S**** lectures Paul supporters on the war in Iraq. Ron Paul is the only candidate with substantial support in either of the major parties that advocates an immediate end to the war in Iraq.
Democrats supported the war in Iraq until it became unpopular. Ron Paul opposed it from the beginning, on sound reasoning, stating over and over again that we should be going after those that took credit for the events of 9/11, who were not in Iraq and were sworn enemies of the regime in Iraq, and not get distracted with nation-building.
The foreign policies of the two major political parties are virtually identical today. When Bill Clinton was president, Democrats and Neo-Conservatives such as Bob Dole and George W. Bush supported mass slander against the Serbian people, and bombing of civilians in Yugoslavia, all in support of a radically Islamic organization funded by Osama Ben Laden and tied to Albanian organized crime in the Balkans. We have troops in Kosovo to this day, protecting the Islamic terrorists there.
Bill Clinton tried to incite war with the regime in Iraq on more than one occasion, and was cheered for doing so by all major Democratic politicians at the time. In 1996, Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary-Of-State, stated, when asked about the estimated half-a-million Iraqi children that died due to U.S. sanctions on Iraq, "...we think the price is worth it." She and the Democrats and Neoconservatives in the GOP have never told us why the price is worth it.
The only people that have always opposed this meaningless and immoral foreign interventionism have been Traditional Conservatives like Ron Paul. If you want to continue the War in Iraq, and possibly expand the debacle to a much larger country (Iran), vote for ANY candidate in either of the two major parties except for Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, or Ron Paul. However, Kucinich and Gravel will seek to turn over even more American sovereignty to the United Nations, whereas Paul alone will seek to withdraw us from the U.N., and protect our national sovereignty.
If you want more Socialism ("any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" - Merriam-Webster) vote for any of the candidates of either party other than Ron Paul, and they will deliver it to you. If you believe in the role of government advocated by Patrick Henry, George Washington, and James Madison, vote for Ron Paul.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From his letter to the Editor in the December 12th issue of this newspaper, it appears that Mr. Jeff S**** jumped into a discussion without reading the original letters which spawned the discussion, while presuming, for some reason, that he was coming in on the beginning of the discussion. He seems to think that the letter written by my articulate (if I may say so) wife, Candace J, and another letter written by another articulate supporter of Ron Paul in Smallville, regarding Paul's positions on Social Security, were the only letters written in support of Dr. Paul.
In fact, my wife had previously written a letter in support of Ron Paul, in which she mentioned his position on almost every matter, including foreign policy, which is one of the foundations of his run for the presidency. Being limited by space and time, Mrs. J could not mention every subject under the sun, and did not touch on Paul's stance on Social Security. In a letter to the Star, a resident of Bourbon pointed out this omission by Mrs. J. The letters to which Mr. S**** refers were written in response to this letter from the resident of B******, and are therefore on the one subject of Social Security.
Most supporters of Ron Paul see Social Security for the Ponze scheme that it is, but that doesn't mean we "conclude that the most pressing issue is how to fund Social Security," as Mr. S**** writes. That was his conclusion, based on coming in late in the discussion without noticing that other letters had led to the discussion of Social Security.
Mr. S****'s insinuation that my wife or any other supporter of Ron Paul does not promote some of Paul's stances because they are afraid of being labeled as "anti-patriotic" shows not only that he never read the first letter to this paper written by my wife, but that he is not paying any attention to even mainstream news stories about Ron Paul's campaign, and what his supporters are saying. Opposition to the war is one of the constant themes of the Ron Paul campaign, and I know of no supporter of Paul that is the least bit afraid of being labeled "anti-patriotic" by promoting this position, although I do know some Paul supporters that don't share his opposition to the war.
I also find it ironic that Mr. S**** lectures Paul supporters on the war in Iraq. Ron Paul is the only candidate with substantial support in either of the major parties that advocates an immediate end to the war in Iraq.
Democrats supported the war in Iraq until it became unpopular. Ron Paul opposed it from the beginning, on sound reasoning, stating over and over again that we should be going after those that took credit for the events of 9/11, who were not in Iraq and were sworn enemies of the regime in Iraq, and not get distracted with nation-building.
The foreign policies of the two major political parties are virtually identical today. When Bill Clinton was president, Democrats and Neo-Conservatives such as Bob Dole and George W. Bush supported mass slander against the Serbian people, and bombing of civilians in Yugoslavia, all in support of a radically Islamic organization funded by Osama Ben Laden and tied to Albanian organized crime in the Balkans. We have troops in Kosovo to this day, protecting the Islamic terrorists there.
Bill Clinton tried to incite war with the regime in Iraq on more than one occasion, and was cheered for doing so by all major Democratic politicians at the time. In 1996, Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary-Of-State, stated, when asked about the estimated half-a-million Iraqi children that died due to U.S. sanctions on Iraq, "...we think the price is worth it." She and the Democrats and Neoconservatives in the GOP have never told us why the price is worth it.
The only people that have always opposed this meaningless and immoral foreign interventionism have been Traditional Conservatives like Ron Paul. If you want to continue the War in Iraq, and possibly expand the debacle to a much larger country (Iran), vote for ANY candidate in either of the two major parties except for Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, or Ron Paul. However, Kucinich and Gravel will seek to turn over even more American sovereignty to the United Nations, whereas Paul alone will seek to withdraw us from the U.N., and protect our national sovereignty.
If you want more Socialism ("any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" - Merriam-Webster) vote for any of the candidates of either party other than Ron Paul, and they will deliver it to you. If you believe in the role of government advocated by Patrick Henry, George Washington, and James Madison, vote for Ron Paul.
Local Resident Responds to "House of Cards"
This is a response from a resident to my wife's letter "House of Cards," which ran in our local paper...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having had the opportunity to read last week's editorials, it is evident that many local citizens have found their presidential candidate. Ron Paul is a man of integrity. However, he advocates simple solutions for very complex problems. These simply won't work.
Why is it that Ron Paul's supporters look at the problems confronting America and immediately conclude that the most pressing issue is how to fund Social Security. Why do his supporters not promote the very laudable stances Dr. Paul has made in refusing to vote for the Patriot Act, or refusing to support the invasion of Iraq. Clearly they find it much more difficult to face being labeled "anti-patriotic"or "against our soldiers." And so it is... However, Dr. Paul cannot be fairly labeled either of these things. Neither can his supporters.
But, let's not mince words. The Social Security program is not -repeat - not in danger of immediate insolvency. The fact that every GOP presidential candidate says that it is, no matter the number of times they collectively say it, in whatever volume or shrillness of voice, does not make it true. The argument is patently false. Yes, the Social Security program faces problems, just as every other Federal program faces problems for funding in the future if we do not get control of runaway government spending that has produced a debt of $9 trillion. We do face tough choices about how to spend our money, because we've been led by the current Administration to believe that we can have massive tax cuts and spend massive amount sof money at the same time - that we need to engage in military operations against threats that don't exist, to give money to U.S. Defense contractors that certainly do.
When looking at ways to get government spending under control, why should our choice be to dismantle Social Security - a program that benefits millions of American citizens. Why not end the war in Iraq, that will eventually cost the American people over $3 trillion?
Why not reduce U.S. military spending which is higher than the next 60 nations combined?!! Apparently, it makes far more sense to takeaway money from common American citizens and tell them they don't deserve any help from their own government (while labeling them Socialists and Communists) and instead bankrupt our Federal treasury in order to have enough money to fund our corporate welfare and military spending programs. And when our leaders do reduce military spending, it comes at the expense of our programs to care for our disabled veterans - the very citizens who answered the call to serve this country.
If you listen to ROn Paul and his supporters, I believe you will conclude, as I have, that simple solutions will not solve the extremely complex problems facing America today. These problems require enlightened thinking, intense debate, tough decision making, broad citizen involvement, compromise, and, in the end, money. Don't be swayed by arguments to dismantle our government or its programs that are necessary for the benefit of millions of Americans.
Let's not turn our backs on our government simply because we don't get everything we want from it all of the time. That, my friends, is a true definition of selfishness; and contrary to Ayn Rand, there is no virtue in that type of thinking - at least not in democracy.
We've rewarded selfishness enough over the past seven years. It is way past time for a new type of leadership in America, and Ron Paul, along with the rest of the GOP candidates, doesn't really offer us what we need at this time in our nation's history.
Jeff S.
Smallville
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having had the opportunity to read last week's editorials, it is evident that many local citizens have found their presidential candidate. Ron Paul is a man of integrity. However, he advocates simple solutions for very complex problems. These simply won't work.
Why is it that Ron Paul's supporters look at the problems confronting America and immediately conclude that the most pressing issue is how to fund Social Security. Why do his supporters not promote the very laudable stances Dr. Paul has made in refusing to vote for the Patriot Act, or refusing to support the invasion of Iraq. Clearly they find it much more difficult to face being labeled "anti-patriotic"or "against our soldiers." And so it is... However, Dr. Paul cannot be fairly labeled either of these things. Neither can his supporters.
But, let's not mince words. The Social Security program is not -repeat - not in danger of immediate insolvency. The fact that every GOP presidential candidate says that it is, no matter the number of times they collectively say it, in whatever volume or shrillness of voice, does not make it true. The argument is patently false. Yes, the Social Security program faces problems, just as every other Federal program faces problems for funding in the future if we do not get control of runaway government spending that has produced a debt of $9 trillion. We do face tough choices about how to spend our money, because we've been led by the current Administration to believe that we can have massive tax cuts and spend massive amount sof money at the same time - that we need to engage in military operations against threats that don't exist, to give money to U.S. Defense contractors that certainly do.
When looking at ways to get government spending under control, why should our choice be to dismantle Social Security - a program that benefits millions of American citizens. Why not end the war in Iraq, that will eventually cost the American people over $3 trillion?
Why not reduce U.S. military spending which is higher than the next 60 nations combined?!! Apparently, it makes far more sense to takeaway money from common American citizens and tell them they don't deserve any help from their own government (while labeling them Socialists and Communists) and instead bankrupt our Federal treasury in order to have enough money to fund our corporate welfare and military spending programs. And when our leaders do reduce military spending, it comes at the expense of our programs to care for our disabled veterans - the very citizens who answered the call to serve this country.
If you listen to ROn Paul and his supporters, I believe you will conclude, as I have, that simple solutions will not solve the extremely complex problems facing America today. These problems require enlightened thinking, intense debate, tough decision making, broad citizen involvement, compromise, and, in the end, money. Don't be swayed by arguments to dismantle our government or its programs that are necessary for the benefit of millions of Americans.
Let's not turn our backs on our government simply because we don't get everything we want from it all of the time. That, my friends, is a true definition of selfishness; and contrary to Ayn Rand, there is no virtue in that type of thinking - at least not in democracy.
We've rewarded selfishness enough over the past seven years. It is way past time for a new type of leadership in America, and Ron Paul, along with the rest of the GOP candidates, doesn't really offer us what we need at this time in our nation's history.
Jeff S.
Smallville
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Merry Christmas From The IRS!
Last week, just in time for Christmas, a friend of mine who is a struggling small businessman received this notice from the IRS, along with a letter telling him he owed them hundreds of dollars, payable "NOW." There is no explanation given as to the reason they claim he owes them - just that he owes them.I think it is clear, upon examination of this notice, that it is a very thinly veiled threat to ruin the reputation of the person receiving the notice.
It never ceases to amaze me what we Americans put up with from our out-of-control, anti-constitutional government! When one receives threats like this from private organizations, such as the Mafia, there is at least the recourse of reporting it to law enforcement, but when the threats come from the IRS, there is no recourse.
Merry Christmas, and a Ron Paul New Year!
House of Cards
My wife's reply, submitted to the local newspaper on Nov. 30, 2007, to a local response to her first letter, "Who is Ron Paul?" :
House of Cards
In response to a letter by Betty and Paul Harmon...
While I appreciate your compassion, I must respectfully disagree. I empathize with making ends meet. And it's not just those who receive a monthly check from the government who are forced to be thrifty, it's also those of us who are putting into the system, while supporting a growing family. This is not an issue of poor verses wealthy. The great thing about the way America is set up, is that it's a place where anyone can do great things. Let's not begrudge someone who has worked hard and succeeded. Isn't that everyone's goal? The idea that wealth should be re-distributed is the root of Socialism and Communism, and it sounds just a bit selfish, too.
However, that said, I think you may be misunderstanding both Ron Paul and Social Security.
Do you know where your Social Security check comes from? Please don't answer "the government." I am sure that you paid in your social security for years, but do you believe that the government has safely stored away your contributions in a trust? Even a bank (a much more financially savvy organization than our own government, by the way) uses the money which we put in it's hands. No, the money which you are being paid monthly comes from my pocket and the pockets of our children and grandchildren.
Most Americans understand that Social Security is in trouble. In the last GOP debates, I believe that every presidential candidate expressed concern over the rapidly failing system that is Social Security.
Mr Paul has repeatedly expressed that he believes that we as a nation should keep our promises to the elderly, who have been forced to pay in to the system all these years, and have come to depend on the government for their very livelihoods.
"... the Social Security “trust fund” is not a trust fund at all. The dollars taken out of your paycheck are not deposited into an account to be paid to you later. On the contrary, they are spent immediately to pay current benefits, and to fund completely unrelated federal programs. Your Social Security administration “account” is nothing more than an IOU, a hopeful promise that enough younger taxpayers will be around to pay your benefits later... The size and longevity of the Baby Boom generation, however, will finally collapse the house of cards." (Quote from Ron Paul)
As I observe the my own generation (20-40) I am amazed at the sloth and laziness which seems to predominate. You will probably agree with me that most of my generation is, sadly, not a very reliable crowd. I am almost surprised when I see a twenty-something who is not a drain on the system, but who is willing to work hard and support a family. So, we have a generation who will not work supporting those who have worked and are now retired. This might possibly hold up, except for one thing. As Ron Paul states, when the baby boomers hit the system, it simply will not be possible to support them. Even if the younger generation did work and pay taxes, the numbers still don't match up. There's not enough of us, to pay for you. The house of cards is awfully shaky.
Are you just hopeful that the system lasts for the rest of your life? What about our lives? What about my two babies? When do you suppose the system will dry up? When will the house of cards finally shudder and fall?
Let's assume you were in the work force for 45 years, making the median income for the US, and paying into SS at the current rate of 15.3%. You have paid a total of $289,170 into the system. Could you have found better ways to invest that money over the past 45 years? Doesn't it seem crazy to give your hard earned money to a group of people who have proven themselves utterly incapable of handling any amount of money?
This is what Ron Paul is addressing when he makes statements about the flawed system of Social Security. And please remember, that the system of social security is taking away from the young, and even unborn children, before they even know that it's happening. That, my friend, is morally impure.
House of Cards
In response to a letter by Betty and Paul Harmon...
While I appreciate your compassion, I must respectfully disagree. I empathize with making ends meet. And it's not just those who receive a monthly check from the government who are forced to be thrifty, it's also those of us who are putting into the system, while supporting a growing family. This is not an issue of poor verses wealthy. The great thing about the way America is set up, is that it's a place where anyone can do great things. Let's not begrudge someone who has worked hard and succeeded. Isn't that everyone's goal? The idea that wealth should be re-distributed is the root of Socialism and Communism, and it sounds just a bit selfish, too.
However, that said, I think you may be misunderstanding both Ron Paul and Social Security.
Do you know where your Social Security check comes from? Please don't answer "the government." I am sure that you paid in your social security for years, but do you believe that the government has safely stored away your contributions in a trust? Even a bank (a much more financially savvy organization than our own government, by the way) uses the money which we put in it's hands. No, the money which you are being paid monthly comes from my pocket and the pockets of our children and grandchildren.
Most Americans understand that Social Security is in trouble. In the last GOP debates, I believe that every presidential candidate expressed concern over the rapidly failing system that is Social Security.
Mr Paul has repeatedly expressed that he believes that we as a nation should keep our promises to the elderly, who have been forced to pay in to the system all these years, and have come to depend on the government for their very livelihoods.
On his website, Ron Paul states, "Solvency is the key to keeping our promise to our seniors, and I have introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219) to ensure that money paid into the system is only used for Social Security. It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor."
"... the Social Security “trust fund” is not a trust fund at all. The dollars taken out of your paycheck are not deposited into an account to be paid to you later. On the contrary, they are spent immediately to pay current benefits, and to fund completely unrelated federal programs. Your Social Security administration “account” is nothing more than an IOU, a hopeful promise that enough younger taxpayers will be around to pay your benefits later... The size and longevity of the Baby Boom generation, however, will finally collapse the house of cards." (Quote from Ron Paul)
As I observe the my own generation (20-40) I am amazed at the sloth and laziness which seems to predominate. You will probably agree with me that most of my generation is, sadly, not a very reliable crowd. I am almost surprised when I see a twenty-something who is not a drain on the system, but who is willing to work hard and support a family. So, we have a generation who will not work supporting those who have worked and are now retired. This might possibly hold up, except for one thing. As Ron Paul states, when the baby boomers hit the system, it simply will not be possible to support them. Even if the younger generation did work and pay taxes, the numbers still don't match up. There's not enough of us, to pay for you. The house of cards is awfully shaky.
Are you just hopeful that the system lasts for the rest of your life? What about our lives? What about my two babies? When do you suppose the system will dry up? When will the house of cards finally shudder and fall?
Let's assume you were in the work force for 45 years, making the median income for the US, and paying into SS at the current rate of 15.3%. You have paid a total of $289,170 into the system. Could you have found better ways to invest that money over the past 45 years? Doesn't it seem crazy to give your hard earned money to a group of people who have proven themselves utterly incapable of handling any amount of money?
This is what Ron Paul is addressing when he makes statements about the flawed system of Social Security. And please remember, that the system of social security is taking away from the young, and even unborn children, before they even know that it's happening. That, my friend, is morally impure.
Response from local resident to "Who is Ron Paul?"
This is the response in our local paper to my wife's letter, "Who is Ron Paul?":
Our thoughts on Ron Paul
Written by Betty and Paul
Thursday, 29 November 2007
I read with much interest Ms. Jacobson's glowing article about Ron Paul. I too was impressed with all of his qualities. I thought here is a man that stands for many of the things I stand for. That is, until I heard him speak on TV. He said he was against many of the same things I feel strongly about.
Then, he came to the part of his speech where he said he was against Social Security and Medicare. Whoa! Here's where I really paid attention. He says he would just do away with those programs. (I notice Ms. Jacobson left out that part.) He didn't say what would happen to the many elderly people in this country that depend on their monthly Social Security check to survive. Many of them have to decide when that check comes if they will have to cut back some on their food this month so they can heat their home, or maybe just not buy the medications they need for the month. Yet, Ron Paul says "just do away with those programs."
I'm sorry Ms. Jacobson, but I just can't call that "morally pure" to even be willing to take that away from the elderly.
To me, morally pure is someone who cares about people. Oh by the way, my husband and I are two of the people who live on our Social Security check. It isn't always easy to stretch that check to cover all the necessities either but we have to manage. (I doubt very much if Ron Paul has that problem, considering the fact he is a multi millionaire.) Ron Paul would take that away from us. This is not moral and no, this senior citizen will definitely not stand with you to vote for Ron Paul. I care about all the people and will vote for someone who cares about the poor and elderly of this nation and not just the wealthy.
Our thoughts on Ron Paul
Written by Betty and Paul
Thursday, 29 November 2007
I read with much interest Ms. Jacobson's glowing article about Ron Paul. I too was impressed with all of his qualities. I thought here is a man that stands for many of the things I stand for. That is, until I heard him speak on TV. He said he was against many of the same things I feel strongly about.
Then, he came to the part of his speech where he said he was against Social Security and Medicare. Whoa! Here's where I really paid attention. He says he would just do away with those programs. (I notice Ms. Jacobson left out that part.) He didn't say what would happen to the many elderly people in this country that depend on their monthly Social Security check to survive. Many of them have to decide when that check comes if they will have to cut back some on their food this month so they can heat their home, or maybe just not buy the medications they need for the month. Yet, Ron Paul says "just do away with those programs."
I'm sorry Ms. Jacobson, but I just can't call that "morally pure" to even be willing to take that away from the elderly.
To me, morally pure is someone who cares about people. Oh by the way, my husband and I are two of the people who live on our Social Security check. It isn't always easy to stretch that check to cover all the necessities either but we have to manage. (I doubt very much if Ron Paul has that problem, considering the fact he is a multi millionaire.) Ron Paul would take that away from us. This is not moral and no, this senior citizen will definitely not stand with you to vote for Ron Paul. I care about all the people and will vote for someone who cares about the poor and elderly of this nation and not just the wealthy.
Who is Ron Paul?
This letter written by my wife was sent to our local newspaper on November 15, 2007:
Who is Ron Paul?
Ronald Ernest Paul, Sr. is a tenth term Republican U.S Congressmen from Texas, a physician, and in my opinion, the best choice for President of the United States in 2008. Does the name sound familiar? He placed third in the presidential election of 1988 as the Libertarian party nominee, even though he was at that time (and still is), a registered republican. He graduated from Duke University School of Medicine in 1961, and was drafted and served as a flight surgeon internationally during the Vietnam War. He presently serves on the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Paul has been called a conservative, a Constitutionalist, and a libertarian. Paul supports free trade, sharply lower taxes, smaller government, and a foreign policy of nonintervention, advocating a withdrawal from NATO and the United Nations. He continues to advocate a dramatic reduction in the size of the federal government and a return to constitutional principles.
He has been called Dr. No, as his voting record stands in sharp contrast to most of his fellow congressmen. He has never voted to raise taxes. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. He has never voted to raise congressional pay. He has never taken a government-paid junket. He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. He voted against the Patriot Act. He voted against regulating the Internet. He voted against the Iraq war. He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program. He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year. He opposes illegal immigration, gun control, and the federal War on Drugs. Paul is and has been pro-life (he is after all, an ob/gyn and has delivered more than four thousand babies). He is a very strong advocate of states' rights.
Ron Paul has been consistently tough on immigration. He has outlined a six point plan for immigration reform. The highlights of his plan are to (1) physically secure the borders, (2) enforce visa rules, (3) no amnesty or (4) welfare for illegal aliens, (5) end birthright citizenship, and (6) to pass true immigration reform.
During his 2008 presidential campaign, Paul has generated a surprisingly strong support group. He remains among the top Republican Internet search terms as measured by three different organizations. He leads the all other presidential (Democrat and Republican) candidates at YouTube, with over 30,000 subscribers.
The overwhelming support he has received has surprised many onlookers. He had more money in the bank in the second quarter than John McCain. Paul has received more donations from military personnel, active and retired, than any other Republican candidate. He raised more than $5 million in the third quarter in a true grass-roots movement. This was 114 percent increase from the second quarter, which is in stark contrast to the decrease suffered by Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Romney's fund raising was down 29 percent, Giuliani's down 40 percent and McCain's down 55 percent.
On November fifth, Paul raised $4.2 Million dollars through a grass-roots effort which was not officially connected with the campaign. This amazing and record-breaking feat is causing many to see him in a new light. In a poll conducted by AOL news, 57% of the American people believe that Ron Paul can indeed be elected. With his top-tier money raising, his candidacy can no longer be ignored.
In Ron Paul's own words to Jay Leno on The Tonight Show, "I have shortcomings, but the message has no shortcomings. It's all about liberty...there's probably a risk I could win".
In November 2008, will you stand with me and say that you voted according to principle and upheld men who are morally pure and defend and abide by the Constitution? Or will you vote out of fear and desperation? John Quincy Adams once said:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
So, I challenge you. Don't vote as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans. Don't vote out of necessity or out of fear, but out of hope for our future. Vote for the man who supports the Constitution, has the voting record to prove it. Vote for the man who believes in and will defend the cause our Founding Fathers fought and died to preserve and protect. Vote for Ron Paul in 2008.
Who is Ron Paul?
Ronald Ernest Paul, Sr. is a tenth term Republican U.S Congressmen from Texas, a physician, and in my opinion, the best choice for President of the United States in 2008. Does the name sound familiar? He placed third in the presidential election of 1988 as the Libertarian party nominee, even though he was at that time (and still is), a registered republican. He graduated from Duke University School of Medicine in 1961, and was drafted and served as a flight surgeon internationally during the Vietnam War. He presently serves on the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Paul has been called a conservative, a Constitutionalist, and a libertarian. Paul supports free trade, sharply lower taxes, smaller government, and a foreign policy of nonintervention, advocating a withdrawal from NATO and the United Nations. He continues to advocate a dramatic reduction in the size of the federal government and a return to constitutional principles.
He has been called Dr. No, as his voting record stands in sharp contrast to most of his fellow congressmen. He has never voted to raise taxes. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget. He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. He has never voted to raise congressional pay. He has never taken a government-paid junket. He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. He voted against the Patriot Act. He voted against regulating the Internet. He voted against the Iraq war. He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program. He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year. He opposes illegal immigration, gun control, and the federal War on Drugs. Paul is and has been pro-life (he is after all, an ob/gyn and has delivered more than four thousand babies). He is a very strong advocate of states' rights.
Ron Paul has been consistently tough on immigration. He has outlined a six point plan for immigration reform. The highlights of his plan are to (1) physically secure the borders, (2) enforce visa rules, (3) no amnesty or (4) welfare for illegal aliens, (5) end birthright citizenship, and (6) to pass true immigration reform.
During his 2008 presidential campaign, Paul has generated a surprisingly strong support group. He remains among the top Republican Internet search terms as measured by three different organizations. He leads the all other presidential (Democrat and Republican) candidates at YouTube, with over 30,000 subscribers.
The overwhelming support he has received has surprised many onlookers. He had more money in the bank in the second quarter than John McCain. Paul has received more donations from military personnel, active and retired, than any other Republican candidate. He raised more than $5 million in the third quarter in a true grass-roots movement. This was 114 percent increase from the second quarter, which is in stark contrast to the decrease suffered by Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. Romney's fund raising was down 29 percent, Giuliani's down 40 percent and McCain's down 55 percent.
On November fifth, Paul raised $4.2 Million dollars through a grass-roots effort which was not officially connected with the campaign. This amazing and record-breaking feat is causing many to see him in a new light. In a poll conducted by AOL news, 57% of the American people believe that Ron Paul can indeed be elected. With his top-tier money raising, his candidacy can no longer be ignored.
In Ron Paul's own words to Jay Leno on The Tonight Show, "I have shortcomings, but the message has no shortcomings. It's all about liberty...there's probably a risk I could win".
In November 2008, will you stand with me and say that you voted according to principle and upheld men who are morally pure and defend and abide by the Constitution? Or will you vote out of fear and desperation? John Quincy Adams once said:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
So, I challenge you. Don't vote as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans. Don't vote out of necessity or out of fear, but out of hope for our future. Vote for the man who supports the Constitution, has the voting record to prove it. Vote for the man who believes in and will defend the cause our Founding Fathers fought and died to preserve and protect. Vote for Ron Paul in 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)