Why should Ron Paul be elected president?

I would probably say the same thing. Obama doesn't have any Idea how to fix our economy and neither does Romney. They both care more about robbing our liberty from us.

If you are paying attention this is a very disturbing trend. If you're not then you probably haven't noticed.

Paul vs Obama Romney Ryan

Obama -- Amnesty (Dream Act)
Romney -- Amnesty (Dream Act)
Ryan -- Amnesty (Comprehensive Amnesty)
Dr. Paul -- NO AMNESTY

Obama -- TARP
Romney -- TARP
Ryan -- TARP
Dr. Paul -- Warned and warned AGAINST TARP

Obama -- Signed NDAA
Romney -- Would sign NDAA
Ryan -- Voted for NDAA
Dr. Paul -- REPEAL NDAA

Obama -- PRIVATE Federal Reserve
Romney -- PRIVATE Federal Reserve
Ryan -- PRIVATE Federal Reserve
Dr. Paul -- END THE FED.

Obama -- Nation-building
Romney -- Nation-building
Ryan -- Nation-building
Dr. Paul -- Nonintervention

Obama -- "Patriot" Act
Romney -- "Patriot" Act
Ryan -- "Patriot" Act
Dr. Paul -- Fourth Amendment

Obama -- Gungrabber (Endorsed handgun ban and limiting gun purchases)
Romney -- Gungrabber (Gun Control flip-flopper who SUPPORTED Brady)
Ryan -- Gungrabber (Voted to close the "gun show loophole")
Dr. Paul -- Second Amendment -- Introduced legislation to repeal the "Brady Bill" and "Assault Weapons Ban."

Obama -- Collectivist healthcare (Obamacare)
Romney -- Collectivist healthcare (Romneycare)
Ryan -- Collectivist healthcare (Medicare Part D)
Dr. Paul -- Free-market healthcare

Obama -- REJECTS the Enumerated Powers and 10th Amendment
Romney -- REJECTS the Enumerated Powers and 10th Amendment
Ryan -- REJECTS the Enumerated Powers and 10th Amendment
Dr. Paul -- Strict Constitutionalist

Paul is honest and tells it like it is. He is not a panderer and tells you what you want to hear. Dr. Ron Paul is an expert on global economics, he knows more about economics and our Constitution than the other three combined.

He will restore our country and our liberty. He has a solid plan to balance the budget in three years.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/th...

My concern is about moving too much in either direction - we need something balanced. Obama, for example, is greedy for "more government" and tries to limit our personal liberties. He's also a jackass when it comes to the economy. We also can't have "no government." One thing I have learned from behavioral studies (summed up) is that people take care of their basic needs first and the rest follow in order of relative importance. That means food and shelter. The Porsche is "extra." This didn't take a degree or genius I.Q. to figure out - any monkey who can stack blocks can figure that one out...but it does relate to what I'm talking about. Too many people don't have enough of their basic needs met, and this concerns me. At the same time, I look at other nations who are trying to dismantle their governments, and that is utter chaos in living color. I don't think the answer is either full regulation or no regulation. We can't do away with the fed because someone has to print the money. I can't just trade you the Cheetos I stole from the now-defunct convenience store for the beef jerkey you stole from the one down the street. We can't just let everyone have guns or no one have guns, either. I was raised with guns, and have many current and former police and military in my family. My grandfather was a vet and an NRA member, collector, and believed them useful for home protection. He never got the chance to find out about the last one because the chow-chows he kept stopped anything from getting in the house before he needed to. He believed, from a practicality standpoint, pistols were great for home protection, and that rifles were useful for hunting game (to eat), but did not think anyone needed an AK fully automatic to hunt OR for home protection because by the time you got done shooting, you would not recognize what you were shooting at as intruder or food - the only thing assault weapons were good for, according to him, was...assault - and highly illegal and harmful activities..

As for TARP - had we not bailed out a relative few banks, a lot more would have toppled like a house of cards and the damage might have been a lot worse, and the economy even more unstable.

No. In fact, I am very much opposed to it. I realize this will probably start a new sh**storm in saying it, but it needs to be made clear...free rides aren't going to cut it anymore because that particular "vehicle" is almost entirely out of gas. We need to enable people, not to sit on their duffs like they've been doing, but instead to take Action (and personal RESPONSIBILITY for their own problems instead of "blaming" others) and learn to be productive and SELF-sufficient citizens in their own right. The reason some (read: Obama and his cronies) want to increase government aid to others is it not only gets them votes now, but creates a dependency which they can exploit later when no one is strong enough to oppose them. That tactic is entirely self-serving, with no real regard for the people they're signing checks to with money the rest of us work hard for, much LESS for the people who work hard footing the bill.

At the same time, some people here are proposing a form of anarchy by "dismantling" government entirely, and that is not the answer, either. There needs to be a healthy balance.

People gripe about taxes and say there need to be less/fewer, people say there need to be more taxes to pay for social programs hardly anyone really wants except the people who recieve them - they are both right...and they are both wrong. The TRUTH is somewhere in the middle.

I make NO apologies for being a free market capitalist. I have worked hard and made sacrifices, I currently am doing the same, and I am fully committed to continuing to do so. I don't expect anyone else to do it for me.