Ron Paul does not have the most socially beneficial domestic policies in the 2012 presidential race.

No attempt has been made to show that these policies are superior to those of Obama, which is still my opponent's imperative. Nevertheless in this round I will closely examine the policies con has proposed. Economy"cut federal spending by $1 trillion the first year"This is the equivalent of immediately cutting 7% of the American GDP. With his abolition of the savings tax, much of this 7% is unlikely to be re-invested. That means a lower standard of living for Americans as GDP decreases. It also means the immediate layoff of tens of thousands of government staff at a time when unemployment is already a big concern. "veto any unbalanced budget"What's wrong with running a surplus? New Zealand ran large surpluses for five years and as a result, we barely took any impact from the recession, where we ran a deficit with all the surpluses we took to counter the sudden loss of investment from elsewhere. That's sensible economics. If the public is allowed to save, why not the government? What is this Keynesian notion that governments must always spend everything they get? "refuse to raise the debt ceiling"Again, you need to prove why this is a good thing. While Barack is certainly going to be prudent, to exclude options like this in a financial environment where flexibility is required is silly. "Federal Reserve System . .. 95% reduction of what our dollar can buy"The problem is not the system, the problem's what they're doing. America needs more regulation to ensure the fed doesn't behave recklessly. That's why Obama spoke in support of Paul's (partial) audit of the federal reserve. "legalize sound money"And who would get it? Can the poor afford gold and silver coins? They don't even have jobs! "end the corporate stranglehold"Barack has already made a good start at this and will continue to do so. "allowing offshore drilling"Thereby facing more oil disasters in the process which costs the government billions of dollars. Plus having the gas companies build lots of expensive drills should immediately drive up gas prices, not down - companies set prices by cost, not simply supply and demand like many economists assume. "abolish highway motor fuel taxes, increase the mileage reimbursement rates". .. which were put in to encourage the use of public transportation, meaning cleaner air and happier wildlife. "offer tax credits to individuals and businesses for the use and production of natural gas vehicles. "In other words, he'd take Obama's clean tech investment programme and restrict it to only natural gas. I thought this guy opposed picking winners and losers in the cleantech (or any) market? Apparently not. "He’d eliminating the income, capital gains, and death taxes"Firstly, these are all progressive taxes. Expect the rich to become richer and the poor poorer in a country which already has one of the highest rates of income inequality in the world. Secondly, these are all taxes that provide an important source of income to the government. There is no substitute for money in fighting deficits, and taxes is how governments get money. Far better to lower taxes on small businesses to help the poor, increase entrepreneurship and keep American jobs (two thirds of Americans work in small businesses). "he‘d eliminate the minimum wage"So Ron Paul would have us all employed, but have most people working for much less than we are now. How is that NOT socialist! ? You could say he won't get rid of the rich, but let's face it - socialist countries had rich people too. Besides being socialist, it also further hurts poor families. This is where Barack's American Jobs Act provides a much better solution. In addition to not ruining America with the aforementioned policies, Obama's plan to drive exports and protect people from Wall Street and Insurance bullies seem far better placed than Paul's to lead America into a brighter economic future. Also, my opponent tacitly avoided mentioning that Paul will abolish almost all science grants. As well as the possible environmental impact of leaving Yellowstone unmonitored (predicted to save ~4 billion lives when it erupts - oh, and did I mention the US geological survey will end, which saved millions during the recent Japanese tsunami? ), there's the economic impact of losing incentive for innovation on that part of companies, which then fall behind the rest of the world. Health care"Repeal ObamaCare"This allowed all people to get health insurance, ending unfair discrimination in the industry. Like I said, before the Affordable Care Act, American health care was quite literally a joke to most poor families. "allow purchase of health insurance across state lines"This will only serve to decrease the control states and individuals have other the industry. Expect to see insurers become bigger and more aggressive if Paul is president. "provide tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses. Exempt those with terminal illnesses from the employee portion of payroll taxes. Give a payroll deduction. .. " etcI have a better idea. Rather than cut all of these taxes (and somehow still expect to pay off the deficit), how about you just don't repeal the Affordable Care Act? That will essentially put millions into the pockets of the government and thousands into the pocket of ordinary Americans. This is all not to mention Obama's free preventative care policy. I guess Paul will end that great policy too. Security/Foreign PolicyMy opponent does not address either Obama's awesome policy or Paul's terrible one. I'm waiting for my opponent to bring it up so I can rebut it. EducationMy opponent does not address either Obama's awesome policy or Paul's terrible one. I'm waiting for my opponent to bring it up so I can rebut it. EnergyObama's clean energy initiative has not only put America much closer to energy independence than Bush was able to do in all of his terms put together - it has also done so in a way that has not cost the environment. Let's see Paul's policy:"lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power"Almost all of these are connected to workplace safety and the environmental impact. If you want to see another Three Mile Island, vote for Ron. "eliminate the ineffective EPA"Nope. Check his 4-year plan to restore America. The EPA is still there 4 years later. You're probably thinking of Perry. Wait, he won't do it either. Gingrich maybe. "Make tax credits available for the purchase and production of alternative fuel technologies. "So he'll replace Obama's grants with Paul's tax credits and pretend it's a big difference. Not really. Drugs"Organized crime syndicates" still exist as they can undercut legitimate traders without taxes - the only difference is that you've legalised their income, so they can fund terrorists in South America etc. Gangs become more violent with deregulation to compete with legitimate traders. Imprisonment still exists for illegal trafficking, plus harder drugs (ie meth) are strongly linked to crime. That's why pro-drug legislation failed in Amsterdam, Alaska, Switzerland, andeverywhere else it has been tried. Individual RightsObama has worked hard to end discrimination, particularly in the workplace and in health care. My opponent's argument that Paul will protect them unlike Obama is nonsensical unless he proves how Obama did not protect individual rights. I was also rather hoping to see a few more of Paul's policies appear - my opponent has seriously missed more than half of his most crucial policies. This is disappointing. For instance, I wanted to point out Paul would be unconstitutionally abolishing the office of the census and the patents and trademarks office, and that Paul would be ending birthright citizenship, creating millions of children who are forced to be overstayers no matter where they go in the process. That's why Ron Paul fails to provide the best policies for American society. The motion stands.