Entroper said:
Paul would not be able to disband the public education system, that's something Congress would have to do. But Paul would probably refuse to sign any bills for new programs like No Child Left Behind which would be a good thing, IMO. People have to realize, all these things Paul is in favor of like removing the Federal Reserve, the IRS, the public school system, are not things that a President can just snap his fingers and have done. But he can prevent them from expanding to some degree, and it's possible that he could promote some scaling back of these programs. |
Just because he can't kill them doesn't mean he can't ruin them. Look at how GW kept the S-CHIP bill from happening. The problem is that if Paul were president there would probably be enough people in Congress that would vote with him to support his policies, probably enough to make a veto of his stand.
I'm very much a New Deal Democrat, something that's nearly gone here in America now. Our government should be here to help us. To reach out to those who need it most and to keep us safe. If our government isn't doing that, then what good are they doing us? I want a candidate who will support socialized medicine, not Ron Paul who will say that free market rules. I watch my dad struggle to afford the medication that keeps him alive and wonder how it got so bad. Why is it that the biggest, richest country in the world can't help it's own people? A candidate who understands that is who we should be voting for.