You guys are so blinded by battle-lust that you can’t see what kind of big-government scum you have been supporting for the last 8 years. I saw republicans elected, and thought there might be some spending cuts, but I’ll never make that mistake again. Not just the war. The moron-in-chief couldn’t figure out how to veto a bill for his first 5 years. No child left behind! A huge new prescription drug entitlement. Welfare, welfare, welfare.

And why should we be surprised that he should decide to give welfare to the whole world? Why shouldn’t we dump some billions on each country in the Middle East. Maybe they’ll start to like us. Don’t hold your breath. Handouts don’t work that way.

My only point in invoking Reagan was not that he was libertarian, it’s that for even the most principled politicians, there’s often a difference between the principles that they espouse and what they do.

Ron Paul is stronger than any other candidate as far as consistency of principles, and that’s why I chime in when I see that he’s attacked on those grounds. If that’s the critique someone is going to put at the feet of Ron Paul, then it is de minimis in comparison to what should be laid at the feet of every other politician.

But FWIW, I think those are some good criticisms on his proposed policies in regard to healthcare.

2. “he’s attempting to neutralize the government involvement in Healthcare to include the irrational tax favoritism to employee sponsored health care.”
In that case, he has no understanding of the tax implications premiums have on business. Level playing field is something we all want, but businesses get deductions, not credits. If he was serious, he would support a bill that allows for individuals to recieve deductions.

3. You are the one that used “L”ibertarian. The proposed legislation is almost Marxist and not one of RP’s most brilliant offerings.

4. I would agree with you there, I like RP but he has a distinct nievete regarding health care and health care reform. I don’t think he needs to be more “L”ibertarian. He just needs to get educated on the true issues of healthcare and not expect the government to pick up the tab. He is remarkably weak on this issue.

The difference with Regan was that he appreciated and understood libertarianism, he didn’t necessarily follow it.

A Couple of Points:

1) I could accept the tax credit as essentially a subsidy, but it’s not an entitlement.

According to the Congressional Glossary:
ENTITLEMENT SPENDING refers to funds for programs like Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, & veterans’ benefits. Funding levels are automatically set by the number of eligible recipients, not at the discretion of Congress.

What separates entitlement from subsidy in this case is that Paul’s plan allows for more tax payers to keep what’s theirs. An entitlement washes tax payer money and distributes it through a social program.

2) Is this a good thing? Well, I think that Paul’s early commentary makes it clear that he’s attempting to neutralize the government involvement in Healthcare to include the irrational tax favoritism to employee sponsored health care. I would argue that we should eliminate the favoritism to business, but that will never happen.

3) Agree the proposed legislation is probably unLibertarian on it’s face, but on strict definitions, I don’t believe that Ron Paul is a strict Libertarian. (see abortion stance, illegal immigration stance, etc.) libertarian (small “l”), yes. Good enough to be the 1988 libertarian nominee yes, but Libertarian (capital “L”) no.

4) My point earlier in saying that he’s a Libertarian, is that he’s the closest thing in the Federal government to it. If we’re making relative comparisons among the politicians in terms of living up to their principles, I’d give Ron Paul high marks. If the main criticism of Paul were that he wasn’t Libertarian enough, then I think we’d all be in a better world ;-).

For instance, Ronald Reagan, an eloquent defender of free trade, the same guy who famously said that “The very heart and sould of conservatism is libertarianism”, imposed “voluntary” quotas on Japanese cars. That’s the way of the world.

I’m a supporter of Ron Paul, but my main criticism of him has been that everything is about Iraq.

For instance, on Bloomberg yesterday, they asked him about monetary policy and he was able to invoke Iraq. Really, I see this as more evidence that he can tie any issue or ill of our country to Iraq. Frankly, it’s annoying to someone like myself, who agrees with 95% of his domestic agenda.

To say he’s not a Libertarian….well, this blog is probably about the only place you’ll find this criticism of him. In fact, you’ll find many conservatives have a disdain for him because he’s too rigid in his Libertarian ideals.

I don’t believe this is a call to expand Healthcare entitlements…just more of the same on his running Iraq commentary. If it is a call to expand entitlements, it would run counter to every comment I’ve read from him when discussing healthcare and his long voting record.