Ron Paul CNN Debate Highlights – June 13th 2011

JK: So, Congressman, come into the conversation. As you do, don’t make it just about foreclosures. This is — this is an interesting topic of discussion, especially — especially when money is scarce and you’ve got to start cutting. It’s a question of priorities. What should the government be doing? And maybe what should the government be doing in a better economy that it can’t do now that has to go? So talk about foreclosures a bit, but then tell me something, if you were president and you were dealing with it in your first few weeks, and you said, “I might like to do this, but I can’t afford to do this,” be as specific as you can, what goes?

RP: Well, I would want to do much less, much sooner. The government shouldn’t be involved. You take the bankruptcies, we’ve been doing a whole lot. We’ve been propping them up. We’ve had the Federal Reserve buy all the illiquid assets, which were worthless, stick it with the taxpayers. The people who’ve made the money when the bubble was being blown up, they’re the ones who got bailed out. But you want the correction. Corrections are good. The malinvestment in the bubbles are caused by the Federal Reserve and the government, and we keep propping it up. And that’s why this is going. It was predictable it would come. It’s predictable it’s lasted three years. And it’s predictable, as long as we do what we’re doing in Washington, it’s going to last another 10 years. We’re doing what we did in the depression. We’re doing what the Japanese have done. You need to get the prices of houses down to clear the market, but they’re trying to keep the prices up. They actually have programs in Washington which stimulating housing. You need to clear the.. clear the market and then we can all go back to work. But what we’re doing now is absolutely wrong.

DR PAUL COLLINS: As a member of the Baby Boomer generation, I’ve been contributing to Medicare through payroll taxes for over 30 years. How do you propose to keep Medicare financially solvent for the next 50 years and beyond?

JK: Let’s start with Dr. Paul on this one.

RP: Well, under these conditions, it’s not solvent and won’t be solvent. You know, if you’re,  if you’re an average couple and you paid your entire amount into Medicare, you would have put $140,000 into it. And in your lifetime, you will take out more than three times that much. So a little bit of arithmetics tells you it’s not solvent, so we’re up against the wall on that. So it can’t be made solvent. It has to change. We have to have more competition in medicine. And I would think that if we don’t want to cut any of the medical benefits for children or the elderly because we have drawn so many in and got them so dependent on the government, if you want to work a transition, you have to cut a lot of money.

And that’s why I argue the case that this money ought to be cut out of foreign welfare, and foreign militarism, and corporate welfare, and the military industrial complex. Then we might have enough money to tide people over. But some revamping has to occur. What we need is competition. We need to get a chance for the people to opt out of the system. Just — you talk about opting out of Obamacare? Why can’t we opt out of the whole system and take care of ourselves?

JK: Congressman Paul, does faith have a role in these public issues, the public square, or is it a personal issue at your home and in your church?

RP: I think faith has something to do with the character of the people that represent us, and law should have a moral fiber to it and our leaders should. We shouldn’t expect us to try to change morality. You can’t teach people how to be moral. But the Constitution addresses this by saying, literally, it says no theocracy. But it doesn’t talk about church and state. The most important thing is the First Amendment. Congress shall write no laws. Which means Congress should never prohibit the expression of your Christian faith in a public place.

RP: The federal government shouldn’t be involved. I wouldn’t support an amendment. But let me suggest,  one of the ways to solve this ongoing debate about marriage, look up in the dictionary. We know what marriage is all about. But then, get the government out of it. Why doesn’t it go to the church? And why doesn’t it to go to the individuals? I don’t think government should give us a license to get married. It should be in the church.

JK: If you were president, if you become president of the United States. Now gays are allowed to serve openly in the military. Would you leave that policy in place or would you try to change, go back to don’t ask, don’t tell or something else?

RP: I would not work to overthrow it. But we have to remember, rights don’t come in groups. We shouldn’t have gay rights. Rights come as individuals. If we wouldn’t have this major debate going on, it would be behavior that would count, not the person who belongs to which group.

JK: And so, Dr. Paul, to you on this one, the question comes up, though, once they’re in the country illegally, you have compassion sometimes bumps up against enforcing the law and state budget crises. A 5-year-old child of an illegal immigrant walks into an emergency room. Does the child get care?

RP: Well, first off, we shouldn’t have the mandates. We bankrupted the hospitals and the schools in Texas and other states. We shouldn’t give them easy citizenship. We should think about protecting our borders, rather than the borders between Iraq and Afghanistan. That doesn’t make any sense to me.

(APPLAUSE)

But on coming in, you know, there was a time when government wasn’t. We didn’t depend on government for everything. There was a time when the Catholic Church actually looked after-

KING: But should they get care? Should they get care? Should taxpayers have to pay for that care?

RP: No, they should not be forced to, but we wouldn’t, we shouldn’t be penalizing the Catholic Church, because they’re trying to fulfill a role. And some of the anti-immigrants want to come down hard on the Catholic Church, and that is wrong. If we believed in our free society, as a matter of fact, this whole immigration problem is related to the economy. People aren’t coming over as much now because it’s weak. When we had a healthy economy, some of our people didn’t work and people flowed over here getting jobs. So there is an economic issue here as well.

But, no, if you have an understanding and you want to believe in freedom, freedom has solved these kind of problems before. You don’t have to say, oh, you’re not going to have care or there won’t be any care and everybody is going to starve to death and die on the streets without medical care. That’s the implication of the question. That’s just not true, and you shouldn’t accept it.

JOHN DISTASO: Here in New Hampshire there is a popular bill that is being considered by our state legislature that would restrict the state’s power to seize private land to build a power plant or a transmission facility. Should governments at any level be able to use eminent domain for major projects that will reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil?

RP: No. We shouldn’t have that power given to the government where they can take private land and transfer it to a private industry. The eminent domain laws are going to vary in different states, but we have the national eminent domain laws. It was never meant to take it from some people, private owners, and then take it and give it to a corporation because it’s going to help that locality. And this goes back to the basic understanding of property rights. Property and free society should be owned by the people, and it shouldn’t be regulated to death by the governments, whether it’s Washington, D.C., or local governments. Right now, we really don’t own our land. We just pay rent on our land and we listen to all these regulations. So I would say that courts should get out of the way, too. They should not have this right to take land from individuals to provide privileges for another group.

RP: I served five years in the military. I’ve had a little experience. I’ve spent a little time over in the Pakistan/Afghanistan area as well as Iran. But I wouldn’t wait for my generals. I’m the commander in chief. I make the decisions. I tell the generals what to do. I’d bring them home as quickly as possible. And I would get them out of Iraq as well. And I wouldn’t start a war in Libya. I’d quit bombing Yemen. And I’d quit bombing Pakistan. I’d start taking care of people here at home because we could save hundreds of billions of dollars.

Our national security is not enhanced by our presence over there. We have no purpose there. We should learn the lessons of history. The longer we’re there, the worse things are and the more danger we’re in as well because our presence there is not making friends let me tell you.

JK: Congressman Paul, if you were the president of the United States and you could pick one, but just one of these gentlemen and the lady, to join your administration, who would it be and why?

RP: Join the administration?

JK: Yes.

RP: I would think everybody would qualify.

JK: You only get to pick one. It’s about choices.

RP: I have to pick one? Hum? Let me look — let me look them over. I would have to do a bit more quizzing. I would have to — they haven’t even told me how they feel about the Federal Reserve yet. They haven’t told me about a non-intervention foreign policy. So I’ll have to do some more quizzing.

RP: I’ve learned that with a group here that disagrees on some issues, we can talk about it and be civil to each other.

Anderson Cooper: My next guest, Congressman Ron Paul, who joins us momentarily. First, by way of introduction, he drew a major following when he ran four years ago for the GOP nomination. Tonight, he drew a sharp contrast with the other candidates on military involvement abroad. Listen.

(begin video)

RP: I served five years in the military. I have had a little experience. I have spent a little time over in the Pakistan/Afghanistan area, as well as Iran. But I wouldn’t wait for my generals. I’m the commander in chief. I make the decisions. I tell the generals what to do.  And I’d bring them home as quickly as possible. And I would get them out of Iraq as well. And I wouldn’t start a war in Libya. I would quit bombing Yemen. And I would quit bombing Pakistan. I would start taking care of people here at home because we could save hundreds of billions of dollars.

Our national security is not enhanced by our presence over there. We have no purpose there. We should learn the lessons of history. And the longer we’re there, the worse things are and the more danger we’re in as well, because our presence there is not making friends, let me tell you.

(end video)

Anderson Cooper: And Congressman Paul joins me now. We just played the response you said about military serving overseas. That really does put you in stark contrast to many of the people on the stage tonight.

RP: Yeah, I think so. It did four years ago. But what I sense now…

AC: And you have been consistent all along.

RP: Yes. And what I sense now is there’s not so much of a dramatic differences. If you listen carefully, some of them are coming our way, my way, the way that I believe we should go. Where the difference is with the people, if you look at the polls and how many people think we should be in Libya and how many people think we ought to get out of Afghanistan. So, that’s where I feel completely different, although I don’t obviously have agreement, and my statement was different, because I’m rather emphatic, because I think the issue of war is so important on principle, because it’s such a deadly issue.

But it’s also a major economic issue. I look at it carefully because all great nations usually go down when they spread themselves too far around the world. They go into an empire. Then they can’t afford it, no matter how well-intentioned it is. And I know those who disagree with me are well intentioned and think this is very necessary. But, financially, it’s very, very risky. And, of course, I pointed out politically, it’s a lot easier cutting this overseas spending than it is to go after child health care. And I think that makes an important point, too.

AC: During the break, Gloria Borger sort of said to you just offhandedly, is it a sense of deja vu being back on this stage? And you said it does feel different. How does it feel different this time?

RP: Well, it felt like I was pushing much harder on the envelope before, and I was so much alone, and didn’t know what the responses were. And even in the first debate that we had in South Carolina, there was a difference. The reactions are different. And what has happened the last three years, it’s different. So, no, I think the country now is definitely moving in the direction of less government, a different foreign policy. But it’s not like it’s my foreign policy. I would sort of like to say I’m running on the position of George W. Bush’s foreign policy in the year 2000, when he talked about a humble foreign policy. People like that. But I want it, and they know it. And now it’s necessary

AC: I want to play for our viewers a response you had when you were asked about the role of faith in public life. I want to play for our viewers your response.

(begin video)

RP: I think faith has something to do with the character of the people that represent us and law should have a moral fiber to it and our leaders should. We shouldn’t expect us to try to change morality. You can’t teach people how to be moral. But the Constitution addresses this by saying literally, it says no theocracy. But it doesn’t talk about church and state. The most important thing is the First Amendment. Congress shall write no laws. Which means Congress should never prohibit the expression of your Christian faith in a public place.

(end video)

AC: The last part you said there, Congress shall never prohibit the expression or no laws which should never prohibit the expression of your Christian faith in a public space. Do you think Christianity is under attack in the United States?

RP: I think to some degree, but

AC: How so?

RP: Well, there’s certain pressures put on Christians and made fun of, you know, just subtly. I don’t think in a legislative sense. But the one point I was trying to make there is that you can’t legislate morality. And that’s what a lot of some people want to think we do. We take our morality, and we will legislate it and make you morally better people. I think that’s impossible. But I said, what has to have a moral fiber is, the law has to have a moral basis to it. And also the people who represent us should have moral character. That’s how I think our faith should influence them.

But the use of force to make people live better. See, I apply that in economics. I apply that to personal things, and I apply that to foreign policy. It would be nice if we could remake Afghanistan and maybe improve it, but it doesn’t work. The blowback is so much is so painful, that it’s much better for us to set a good example with men who have character, men who believe in principles, and then other people may want to emulate us.

Well, there’s certain pressures put on Christians and made fun of, you know, just subtly. I don’t think in a legislative sense.

But the one point I was trying to make there is that you can’t legislate morality. And that’s what a lot of — some people want to think we do. We take our morality, and we will legislate it and make you morally better people. I think that’s impossible.

But I said, what has to have a moral fiber is, the law has to have a moral basis to it. And also the people who represent us should have moral character. That’s how I think our faith should influence them. But the use of force to make people live better — see, I apply that in economics. I apply that to personal things, and I apply that to foreign policy.

It would be nice if we could remake Afghanistan and maybe improve it, but it doesn’t work. The blowback is so much.. is so painful, that it’s much better for us to set a good example with men who have character, men who believe in principles, and then other people may want to emulate us.

AC: Congressman Ron Paul, thank you for your time. I know you have had a busy day.

RP: Thank you very much.

AC: Thank you

RP: Thank you