What would a Ron Paul presidency really look like?

Keeping in mind that I don't have an absolutely perfect understanding of what policy issues a President would have an immediate ability to affect, I wanted to try and paint a picture of what Paul would and would not be able to accomplish once in office. First as dose of realism for his supporters, and secondly, to combat some of the fears regarding his extreme views for those who are hesitant to support him. A lot of this is guess work of course, please correct me on any of these assumptions rather than simply calling me a moron in capital letters, I admit in advance I don't know for certain what absolute powers he would or would not have.

What Ron Paul could do:

- Bring troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq and pull out of Libya within months
- End federal stimulus and bailouts
- Be able to push through Audit the Fed legislation and a balanced budget amendment (this issues are close to becoming a reality anyways, I think the mandate he'd get with an election would make it happen)
- Repeal the Patriot Act, or at very least, temporarily suspend the abuse of it. Is it now permanent legislation? Or would it be up for revision once again in the coming years?
- Increase the number of diplomats working in foreign countries
- Severely reduce government financial support to all departments
- Handicap FEMA (by simply requiring it to operate on budget he would effectively eliminate it as a primary source of disaster relief)
- Eliminate the TSA
- Take away any legislative powers of the EPA
- Allow for increased oil and coal production in the US
- Simplify the tax code and reduce taxes overall (I really don't think he would abolish the IRS anytime soon unless something like a flat tax was instituted)
- Inact some measure of welfare reform
- Create an "opt out" within social security for young people
- much more?...

What Ron Paul couldn't do:

- Abolish the Department of Education, Homeland Security, FEMA, the IRS, FCC, etc. I think it would be a long process to do so. Paul has expressed many times that he would not eliminate several of these institutions instantly as there would be a need for transition and states/individuals would require time to create alternate structures.
- Shut down all overseas military bases
- End the Fed
- Entirely repeal Obamacare and Medicaid
- Exile lobbyists from Washington
- Take us back to the Gold Standard
- Eliminate welfare and the minimum wage


Thoughts? Comments? Additions? Subtractions?

"Irrelivant because it will never happen" comments are not what I'm looking for thanks!

 

So is this an argument for voting for Paul? "Don't worry, he can't accomplish everything he wants to, so it's safe to vote for him." Though I want to close down many overseas bases and bring an end to our current wars, I think the policy of blind isolationism based on principle instead of the stratetic realities of the world around us is dangerous which is why I'm not voting for him.

I mean, dropping our support for Israel would be a disaster and he wants to do that!

 

Errr...a day at the old folks home?

 

These are the only things on your list that I think could happen:

- Increase the number of diplomats working in foreign countries
- Allow for increased oil and coal production in the US
- Simplify the tax code and reduce taxes overall (I really don't think he would abolish the IRS anytime soon unless something like a flat tax was instituted)
- Enact some measure of welfare reform

Anything else he tries to do will be blocked by Congress, and of course pretty much anything else Congress tries to pass will get to feel the wrath of Ron Paul's uber-veto pen.

 

It's not actually possible to predict. What if a bunch of sympathetic Tea Partiers ride his coattail into office? What of the political fiction with real consequences known as the "mandate?"
He might accomplish more than you expect.
He might accomplish nothing.

He could, as the president is Commander in Chief. The problem I have with Paul is that he would regardless of what information he discovers upon inauguration.

Possibly through an executive order.

No. The president cannot push through a Constitutional ammendment. This is mostly up to Congress and the states.
This would be harder than legislation. If you think he can get this via "mandate" then nothing you listed as not likely can be ruled out.

He could use executive order to change how it is enforced. Repeal is doubtful.

I think so. Getting them appointed is another matter.

These would require a sympathetic congress. He could unilaterally hurt the enforcement ability of the bureaus, but not enact legislative changes.

He could do any one of these things if Congress helped him. I don't see how these can be ruled out any more than welfare reform itself.
More and more radical conservatives are winning primaries in the attempts of the Tea Party to purge RINOs. Don't assume that it's impossible for the Congress to be overrun with goldbugs during Paul's term of office.
I think the Tea Party will fall apart at some point as the far-right GOP is unsustainable... but for some amount of time, Tea Partiers will control the primaries and people thinking of themselves as Rpublicans will vote any Republican over any Democrat. I don't know how many elections it will take for that to change.
Paul only needs one Congressional session with far-right support to get a lot of crazy things through.

Really.. if you think somebody's major ideas are insane, you do not vote for them because you think them unlikely.
Only people who agree with Ron Paul on his major issues should vote for him.
He does have a record of being principled... To those that agree with him on everything, that's good. For people who think his ideas are crazy-- that just means he will be persistent to get those crazy ideas through.

 

This explains it better than I ever could.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-08-14/ron-paul-the-most-pro-israel-candidate/


Frankly, I am very disgusted with all that regurgitated misinformation about Paul.
Think people, think.

 

Save it. Paul sunk himself at the last debate when he revealed too much about how he REALLY thinks on foreign policy. That will be his undoing. And it's a sad thing too because on domestic issues I would vote for Paul every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

Great post!

A large portion of our populace simply has Paulophobia... coupled with a misunderstanding of what a president can and cannot do.

Then you have the "to the grave Israel supporters" who seem to think that Paul is a "Mooslime luvin' tererist apolygizer" who blames America for 9/11.... the types who think like Santorum.

 

How does Paul really think?

 

I posted in regard to your false statement that
a- Israel
b- foreign policy

Please read it. If people really would inform themselves about Paul, he would be the front runner.

 

That's the thing with you Ron Paul fanatics. Either people agree with Ron Paul and are going to vote for him or they don't understand his views and rely on media driven myths. It's all or nothing with you folks. The only serious liability Ron Paul has is Ron Paul supporters and their "screw you if you don't agree with everything he says" attitude.

As it is, Paul has been bumped down on my list from 2 to 3. Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and Ron Paul. He's doing pretty good still since he's ahead of all the other contenders in my book.

 

Ron Paul pointed out the Cause and Effect of the US Foreign Policy... and he gets boo'd for it. I guess it's better to be blindly ignorant for most on foreign policy and just dupe yourself into believing they hate us because we're rich and free.

 

They hate us because we won't let them plow Israel under. Assuming that their motives for hating us are justified and pure as the wind driven snow is idiotic. Their motives are evil and if they try to destroy Israel, they should be bombed into glass plated oblivion.

And we should keep the assets in place to make that happen.

 

I don't support all of Ron's positions and ideas myself. But I do take issue with people's willful misunderstanding of his ideas and positions. Case in point, Santorum's weaselly comments during the last debate and the resulting audience/populace reaction.

 

You do know that Ron Paul actually wants to unleash Israel... Israel has the better Military ten times over than most of the Nations put together as well as Nuclear aresenal. There is no reason for the US Government to give foreign aid to BOTH sides and propagate the entire War there. By us no longer entangling ourselves with Israeli Government it has free reign to defend itself and just Ron Paul supported in the past... bomb enemies they feel threatened by.

 

That shows how ignorant you are of the strategic situation in the Middle East. Israel is a tiny nation surrounded by 11 countries that would like nothing more than to destroy them. The only reason they don't is because we support them. During the wars of 1967 and 1973, Israel very quickly ran out of munitions and supplies and were preserved only because we resupplied them. Any future war would also necessitate our direct intervention. I don't know if Ron Paul just hates Jews and Israel or what because what he's proposing would be their sure destruction.

 

That War would never happen ever again... If those countries took up arms against Israel they would nuke them into dust unlike the past when they had no such defence. None of those countries have Anti-ICBM defences at all...

Edit: Because if their intention was to kill slaughter/enslave every man, woman and child... I wouldn't condemn them for using Nukes for survival at all.

 

Right, with our government? He couldn't get any of this passed. Don't believe the hype. He would either be run out of Washington because he'd try and veto every piece of legislation from either side or he would become complicit in the lies and hypocrisy of Washington.

 

So we should stick with Status Quo Politicians because atleast we know they're going ram it into us hard?

 

Yep, people like to freak out over Paul wanting to stop aid to Israel, but they conveniently forget (or never learn) that Paul also wants to cut aid to Israel's enemies.

Israel is not some helpless, incapable nation. Their military is no joke in terms of skill and equipment. And should they be attacked, Western nations are going to support them anyways.

 

First off, we need to be educated and unfortunately neither side seems willing to do this and neither is Ron Paul. He somehow believes this magical force of the free market will either educate or eradicate American stupidity. It will do neither. We would be in total chaos if he got his way. We would be back to the age of Robber Barons. While I agree with a lot of what he says, it simply isn't practical and unfortunately he doesn't understand that Democracy only exists with a strong government not with a limited less powerful one.

 

First, which position(s) are you thinking of specifically, and then, how will he make that position become reality?

With big government, or overly powerful government, comes oppression.

 

From the aforementioned link.

 

This isn't as straightforward as you think.
Paul's view of foreign policy is pretty simplistic... and the reason why is evidenced in his domestic policy. Think about this:

How in the hell would causing further instability in Israel's enemies help Israel?
Less foreign aid will most likely lead to less economic stability, more strife and suffering.

So the nations would be less prepared for war? So what?
They'd still be more likely to GO TO WAR (or engage in greater amounts of terrorism and be more and more open to aid from richer terrorist-supporting nations (HINT: Iran would still be pretty powerful without our help)).

I'd argue that what's best for Israel is stability and the eventual possibility of peace with neighbors. I'd argue that more instability in the region will hurt Israel (and in fact increase the "blowback" effect Ron Paul centers his beliefs around).

In fact, my argument-- like many liberals, a sad number of whom think Paul's foreign policy will help-- about Israel has always been that Likkud's hawkish policies are a problem for Israel AND its neighbors.
Destabilizing the region will make Likkud more powerful as the threat of war will be larger.

So much for peace.
Paul's foreign policy is "Screw 'em." War by omission.
At least neo-cons want something similar to us while disagreeing on the way.
Paul just doesn't care and anyone claiming to care about Israel's or Palestine's people would be insane to support him (how do you think an even more paranoid Israel with no leverage from us would turn out for the Palestinians?)

 

1. "Their motives are evil".....are we living in a J.R.R. Tolkien book?
2. Isn't Israel capable of bombing their enemies into glass plated oblivion?