Battling the Conservative Media

This article made me think about how the media is treating the Paul campaign:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/opinion/jack-kerwick/9170-ron-paul-and-qthe-conservativeq-medias-double-standards

It has been pointed out on many separate occasions (most notably by Jon Stewart) that even the conservative media has ignored Ron Paul's presence in the Republican Presidential race. Even after the Ames Iowa Straw Poll where Paul came within a hair of beating Bachmann for first in her home state, we were told by those in the media that Romney, Perry, and Bachmann were the frontrunners. Now with Bachmann falling behind Paul in all of the polling, it's just Romney and Perry, so we are told.

The same media would also like their audience to think that Ron Paul's supporters are just a fringe or hardcore group of supporters. While I don't doubt that those who support Dr. Paul are enthusiastic about his campaign, I think it's a grave mistake to write them off as outliers. For the most part Paul's group of supporters want real change in our federal government, and are tired of candidates that represent more of the same. The other Republican candidates very much represent more of the same, and Paul's supporters know this. For that reason, I would conclude that the treatment that Paul's campaign is receiving as well as the dismissal of his candidacy would backfire against the Republican party itself. That 8%-14% of the voting population which support Ron Paul could harbor resentment towards the Republican party itself, enough to not vote for any Republican candidate if Paul isn't on the ticket. If that were the case, any chance of a Republican winning the Presidential election would be improbable.

Taxes and Class Warfare

I thought of a few things today while reading comments about proposed tax cuts. Some people are for tax cuts, and some are for increased taxes on the wealthy. When discussing taxes, it's always good to keep in mind where the money is going.

When politicians promote tax cuts for the 'working' class, I'm always weary of these. That's because a lot of tax cuts aren't cuts at all, just tax credits. It's the government saying that they are 'letting' us keep more of our own money, as if it were their money to begin with. I thought that the government worked for the citizens, not the other way around.

The Obama administration has already made the case that we need to increase taxes on the wealthy because they need to pay their 'fair' share. I would totally agree with that statement. The wealthy should be treated no differently than any other wage earning American and pay their fair share. We should close tax loopholes to make sure that they wouldn't be able to take advantage of the system. At the same time though, in all fairness, shouldn't we also normalize their income tax rate as well so that it's more inline with their fellow citizens?

With all that said though, we need to keep in mind, even if we taxed the wealthy heavily, what exactly would that accomplish? It just ends up going into the hands of the government. The same government that bails out banks for hundreds of billions of dollars using tax payer money, gives aid to countries that have no direct impact on our lives, squanders money on wars overseas, and subsidizes companies that fail (like Solyndra). Let me break it down, we would be basically taking money from the rich, and giving it to... the rich?

Like always though the politicians promise to balance the budget and clean up the wasted federal spending. Every time I hear of a new government program from Obama, he says he's going to pay for it with spending cuts elsewhere, fixing loopholes, or ferreting out wasted spending. If it were so easy to do this, he should have done it already. Maybe it's just me, but I'm tired of giving the government the money I earn, and having them waste it on banks that make bad decisions, horrible companies like Solyndra, and bureaucracies that waste money. How about having the government fix the spending problem before we focus on the income problem.

Results From Last Night's Debate

I was looking around the web trying to find the reaction to last night's debate. One thing I was looking for were actual online polls asking people who they thought won that night's debate. I would have thought that surely Fox News would have an online poll considering that they hosted the debate. I was wrong. I found no online poll whatsoever. I did however find an explanation as to why there was no online poll to be found in this article below:

http://rt.com/usa/news/fox-paul-debate-poll-257/

The funny thing is that this is not the first time this has happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB2_iLjiAaE&feature=related

Update: A new poll is up on Fox News. Go vote if you watched the debate...

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/americas-newsroom/index.html

As of 7:30pm EST on Sept. 24th:

What the MSM Does Not Realize About Ron Paul Supporters

Article after article that tries to discredit or marginalize Ron Paul fails to do so with his supporters. One objective of the media may be to keep Ron Paul from gaining further support. However, if that is the goal, then the established media should know that they are already fighting a losing battle.

Ron Paul supporters know that he already differentiates himself from the other candidates with his views on what the role of government ought to be. They've researched him and know that he is ideologically consistent throughout. Whatever article is put out there to marginalize his chances or views is quickly shot down in the comments section if the article/website allows comments.

The media cannot sway a knowledgable base of supporters like they may be able to do with the public who rely on the mainstream media for information. Keep this in mind as well; most Ron Paul supporters can explain in detail why they support him to others AND win them over. I've heard time and again that when someone who has no knowledge of Paul and his views gets to do their own research on him, that they tend to think he is a good candidate as well.

Supporters of Paul know that he is a candidate that is honest and straight forward. His views might seem to be 'out there', but truth be told, thinking outside of the box is what we need right now in this country. We don't need more of the same 'in the box' thinking that has brought us to this awful position in the first place.

An Analysis of the Health Care Question

The New American posted a great analysis of the Healthcare fallacy that was posed during the Tea Party debate hosted earlier this month. The idea that if a person has no insurance, and the government does not provide for it, then that person is going to die.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9038-ron-paul-a-the-great-progressive-myth-healthcare

The article breaks down the fallacy and also repudiates Paul Krugman, a New York Times journalist who has a tendency to make false assumptions. Going to my earlier blog posts, I speak from experience that one does not need health insurance, much less government mandated health insurance, to get medical care when confronted with a major health problem.

I am not saying that my situation is a regular occurrence in the health care industry. In fact, I had to change doctor's in order to find an honest one that would treat my condition and my bank account fairly, but I found one. Government run healthcare is not and should not be the only solution.

Sidenote: That doctor that tried to gouge me to treat my illness ended up losing his office and moving somewhere else (probably to an area where he could gouge new patients or their insurance companies).

More Journalism At It's Worst

From the Wall Street Journal which argues the statement by Ron Paul that:

"We're under great threat because we occupy so many countries. We're in 130 countries. We have 900 bases around the world."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904060604576572771371103988.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

The author is going over the semantics of the statement. What is a base? how many constitutes to a base? He then uses statistics to try to back up his point. The main problem I have here, is that the article is using statistics that are in themselves inaccurate. The Pentagon reporting that it 'only' has 662 bases around the world doesn't count classified projects.

Now let's take this statistic in from the article itself:

"Afghanistan, Iraq, Japan, South Korea, Germany, the U.K. and Italy, all of which are home to at least 9,000 troops. Aside from Afghanistan and Iraq (which may soon drop off that list) all of these are World War II and Cold War legacies. Another five countries—Spain, Turkey, Belgium (the headquarters of NATO), Bahrain and Djibouti—have between 1,000 and 1,500 troops. The next largest deployments are Portugal (703), Qatar (555) Honduras (403) and Greece (338)."

Japan, South Korea, Germany, the U.K., Italy have atleast 9,000 troops? 9000 troops across how many bases? Spain, Turkey, Belgium, Bahrain and Djibouti have between 1,000 and 1,500? Across how many bases? From Wikipedia:

"As of 31 December 2010, U.S. Armed Forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries.^[23] Some of the largest contingents are the 85,600 military personnel deployed in Iraq, the 103,700 in Afghanistan, the 52,440 in Germany (see list), the 35,688 in Japan (USFJ), the 28,500 in Republic of Korea (USFK), the 9,660 in Italy, and the 9,015 in the United Kingdom respectively. These numbers change frequently due to the regular recall and deployment of units."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_armed_forces

Using the wording 'at least 9,000' is very misleading.... 85k, 103k, 52k, 35k, 28k, 9.6k, and 9k. The author could have said that atleast 5 countries have more than 28,000 troops, but he didn't because to prove his point "atleast 9,000" sounds better. Also why would you recite the exact troop count of the smaller deployments, but neglect doing that in the larger deployments. To hide some statistics, but state others to prove a point IS MISLEADING YOUR READERS.

Foreign Policy

Read the article, then read the comments. The author is just misguided.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/15/thedcs-jamie-weinstein-ron-pauls-foreign-policy-fallacies/2/#disqus_thread

Ron Paul's Response to the Healthcare Question

Ron Paul's reaction to the healthcare question:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/14/ron-paul-on-debates-healthcare-moment/

I agree with Dr. Paul. Like I've said before in previous posts, having health insurance is not the only option. The question was basically framed like this:

If a young person does not have health insurance, and they suffer a critical injury, then they are going to die.

In direct response to the moderator's question 'should society let that person die?' Ron Paul immediately said 'No'. Leave it to the media outlets to NOT focus on his response, but instead lead everyone to believe that he is in favor of letting people die.

Can we really not think of a way to deal with healthcare that exists outside of a government mandate? It would be great if government could facilitate a program for providing quality cost efficient health care, but I don't see that happening. One can only look at the other government run entitlements and programs that are going broke.

Misleading Article At It's Best

This is one of the most misleading articles I've seen it quite some time.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-ron-paul-gop-debate-20110913,0,3161863.story?track=rss#tugs_story_display

At first glance with how the article is setup, one can assume that with the picture of Ron Paul and the Headline, Ron Paul had said that the uninsured in need of intensive health care should be allowed to die. I know that's what I had thought when I looked at it for a second. But I do support Ron Paul, and I just couldn't believe he would say such a thing.

Reading further into the article this here was the actual exchange between Blitzer and Paul that occurred during the debate:

“But congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die,” Blitzer asked.

“Yeah,” came the shout from the audience. That affirmative was repeated at least three times. Paul, who has always had a reputation for being a charitable man, disagreed with the idea that sick people should die, but insisted that the answer to the healthcare problem was not a large government.

“I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s when I got out of medical school,” Paul said. “I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio. And the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals. And we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves, our neighbors, our friends; our churches would do it. This whole idea — that's the reason the cost is so high. The cost is so high because we dump it on the government. It becomes a bureaucracy. It becomes special interests. It kowtows to the insurance companies, then the drug companies.”

Attaching an affirmation that the candidate wants to let uninsured people die because of the response from an audience member in the debate? This is absolutely ludicrous. Again, like all of the articles I've read, you'll notice in the comments and discussions there are people who actually read further into the subject. These people are appalled by these articles that are so obviously intended to marginalize certain candidates and ideas. This 'journalist', if one can even call him that, should be fired on the spot. I always thought that the purpose of journalistic news was to report on the facts, not to misinform the audience.

Narrow Minded Debate

Read this today.

http://live.drjays.com/index.php/2011/09/13/why-ron-paul-would-leave-you-to-die-other-tea-party-insights/

"Ron Paul and The Coma Man: Following up on the healthcare debate, the debate moderator, Wolf Blitzer, asked Rep. Ron Paul what would happen to a healthy, young man who chooses not to get health insurance, but then suffers a life-threatening accident and needs life support (Paul was a licensed and practicing doctor). After Paul danced around the question, Blitzer pushed: “Congressman, are you saying society should let him die?”

And then the crowed cheered.

And Paul, a man who took an oath to heal the sick, said that “neighbors, friends, and churches” would take care of everyone, like some magic wand being waved."

Firstly, the hypothetical question here is very much biased. It is stating that if the 'healthy young male' does not have health insurance, then he is going to die. What a load of crap. The real question should be, why is healthcare so expensive that the healthy young male chooses not to get health insurance in the first place.

Secondly, here is some personal insight. I myself was diagnosed with a condition years back that I almost died from. At the time, I did not have health insurance either. I did not need Obamacare or the government to take care of me. What I did was find an honest doctor that knew I did not have health insurance and work with me to give me affordable treatment. Finding this doctor was not easy. The first specialist I went to assumed I had health insurance, and so he charged me exorbitant rates for simple procedures such as blood tests. I am talking $300 and over for a blood test where the honest doctor only charged $60.

The healthcare system itself needs to be fixed, as I've witnessed how broken it is firsthand. Mandating that everyone get insurance does not guarantee that someone's life will be saved. What it does do is make sure that the healthcare system today will have plenty of people with insurance to gouge. There are more choices than being for Obamacare and being against it. Obamacare is NOT the only solution.

Why I Started This

I've always tried to keep up with current events and news when I can. Like most, I haven't been active politically, but I am becoming increasingly frustrated not only by politicians, but by the news media as well.

With all that has been going on lately, from bank bailouts and the suffering economy to media coverage diverging from what we used to call journalism, it is no wonder that more and more people have become dissatisfied with the current state of America.

This blog was made as an outlet for myself and hopefully others to voice their own discontent of our current state of affairs.

Washington Post Frustration

Recently, I read an opinion article on washingtonpost.com

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/ron-paul-call-him-a-nut/2011/09/09/gIQARs57EK_blog.html

Erik Wemple published another piece earlier (a few weeks ago perhaps), after Jon Stewart had pointed out that the media ignored Ron Paul after his near tie finish during the Iowa Straw Poll Dr. Paul finished in second place and narrowly missed first place by 200 votes. That opinion piece resulted in an outpouring of support for Ron Paul in the comments section.

In this latest opinion piece, Wemple outright dismisses Paul as a nut after the debate at the Reagan Library, and stated that the media was right in ignoring Paul in the first place. This article again was met with an outpouring of support for Paul. Most negative comments directed at Paul supported the 'nutcase' name calling without any actual argument to back it up.

However, when this was pointed out, here was one reaction:

"The problem with what you state is that the pro-Paul posters state the same talking points over and over again, and quite a number of them are frankly dubious (Ron Paul is the only politician that is truly interested in the welfare of this country?), if not wrong on the facts (Ron Paul considers the income tax to be unconstitutional, even though the 16th Amendment clearly authorizes it -- so is he THAT knowledgeable about the Constitution?)."

I was pretty frustrated that I wasn't able to respond to this person because the comments were closed. This guy's argument is just flat out wrong. If he did any research at all, he would know that Ron Paul supports repealing the 16th Amendment. Doing research on a candidate helps when you are actually interested in who you want to see as President.

The point still stands that detractors really can't say much about Ron Paul other than attacking him on an uninformed basis or calling him a racist because he opposes certain legislation (which if you actually read his reasoning, you would see that it is not based on race, but on the principle of what the federal government should or should not do). If people were to examine the candidates more instead of going off of small quips or sound bytes, then I think all of us would be in better shape.