Shared publicly  - 
 
Once again, if someone is going to take Ron Paul's banner after all is said and done, I'd much rather see it passed to Justin Amash than Rand
3
1
Cara Schulz's profile photoRich Leach's profile photoJed Gravelin's profile photoArthur Gwynne's profile photo
12 comments
 
unfortunately as long as we're living in a representative democracy under the original constitutional intention of government we will need more than one politician taking the Ron Paul banner. There are a couple important Senate primary races going on in Texas and Indiana to replace the established candidates with pro-liberty, young Republicans(neither of which are perfect). We just need more.
 
So what about this article in particular, or Rand as a whole, would make you say this? I am just curious why.

And I wholeheartedly agree with you +Ian Saukerson - and at least among my group of friends and colleagues, there is quite a bit more focus on Gov't policies and politics in general than I have ever seen before - so I actually see this happening, which gives me at least some faith.
 
I don't think the GOP understands that either we have a smooth transition to more small l libertarian candidates in the Party or we will have a civil war within the party - and it won't be smooth.
 
+Cara Schulz is absolutely right. I believe that the GOP as it is now is doomed, though. They have the entrenched interests and financial backing to remain a major party for at least the next two decades but I believe as older voters begin to die off and younger people replace them the Republican party won't be able to transfer that money and power into electoral success, particularly because it's been their policy to alienate growing demographics like Hispanics, Gays/Lesbians/Allies, and atheists/agnostics or non-Christians. I could foresee another party supplanting both Dems and R's within the next 40 years.
 
Did any of you read the article? It is my understanding that the oil companies receive subsidies from the government. And they turn a profit. Am I the only one who thinks that oil companies don't need subsidies? Not giving them subsidies isn't the same thing as raising their taxes (and no one else's). How about lower taxes for everyone?
 
+Richard Leach that is exactly my point. If he wants to defend Big Oil's right to profit, we need to be sure we aren't giving them a single tax dollar first.
 
This is where we suck at capitalism and then blame capitalism instead of our sucky way of bastardizing it. We socialize costs and losses and privatize profits. That's the worst of both worlds.
 
And considering Ron Paul is one of the few nationally recognized politicians who not only understands but preaches that, it's really sad his son sounds more and more like he either just doesn't get it, or is too deep playing the politics game and is already lost to us
 
ok, wait a god damn minute here.... I finally went and read the quote from Rand(didn't read anything else, it's the damn Daily Show after all) and he doesn't say anything about oil subsidies. It sounds like the bulk of his quote is directed at individual income tax(which I imagine we're all against). Perhaps I have a more Randian view on profit makers and employers, but I'm pretty much with him 100% on that quote. Also, if he's anything like Ron then OF COURSE he's opposing whatever strings-attached legislation the Dems are trying to pass under the guise of closing corporate welfare loopholes.
 
He absolutely doesn't say anything about subsidies, which is the problem . If we are going to talk about Big Oil, or any Big Biz, the first point of the conversation should be killing their subsidies, then we can talk about the morality of their profit margins.
 
thank you +Ian Saukerson I stand corrected. He does indeed cover the subsidies. But there is still a bad taste in my mouth from reading that that I simply never get when reading his father's speeches. His focus is not where I would want his focus to be, if I were to follow or endorse him.
Add a comment...