Skip to comments.Ron Paul Not a Myth
Posted on 04/30/2007 9:14:44 AM PDT by Austin Willard Wright
We published an analysis on Dollar Myths in which we criticized spending habits in Washington:
"Interestingly, nobody seemed to focus on the fact that there is an unconventional solution to foreigners holding too much of our debt: live within your means and do not issue debt. Such an old fashioned concept would indeed strengthen the dollar. Unfortunately, none of the presidential candidates at either side of the aisle seem to have heard of this notion."
We missed that there is indeed a presidential candidate who believes in the old fashioned view to live within your means. Our apologies go to Congressman Ron Paul, who threw his hat in the ring on March 12, 2007, announcing his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination. Ron Paul is the one member of Congress who is a true fiscal conservative. As a member of the House Committee of Financial Services, he does not hesitate to speak out against inflationary policies. On his campaign website, Ron Paul 2008, he writes:
Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.
But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation
If we dont cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future and yours.
(Excerpt) Read more at fxstreet.com ...
"He prattles on and on about rolling back every bureaucracy in the government at his leisure"
Which wideawake should we believe?
You would be wrong, even if it were true that military force had been used liberally - which it demonstrably has not.
It has been pointed out to you more than a dozen times on this thread that military spending is well beneath historical norms.
So your statement - intended to justify your deceptive bait-and-switch - is ridiculous on its face.
In fact, last cycle's ubiquitous argument was that the administration had skimped on the use of military force - that it did not deploy enough men, or enough materiel, or sufficiently expensive and fancy materiel to the job.
This cycle the spin is that we are spending too much, despite the hard facts of what has actually been spent in the historical context.
Treason apparently breeds madness. It definitely breeds inconsistency.
This must be the wideawake that does not listen to Ron Paul.
Lip service????? Give me a break. You talk about me misrepresenting! I can’t hold a candle to you., Ron Paul doesn’t just pay “lip service” to limited government across-the-board. He puts himself on the record, often at great political risk. Just because you disagree with Paul doesn’t mean you have to distort his record (90 percent for smaller government according to the National Taxpayers Union).
Ron Paul spends the bulk of time in the media sabotaging defense spending.
The average American voter who has only a passing familiarity with Ron Paul, will know him only as the Republican who agrees with defunding the troops.
If one goes to Ron Paul's website one will find plenty of fiscally conservative stances.
However, what matters is what a candidate emphasizes, in the public eye, as his policy focus. That is what the undecided voters see, and what they will hold him to if elected.
And if you look at Ron Paul's media appearances, he goes on and on about defunding the troops.
John McCain may have an intricate and really well thought-out plan to encourage more private sector investment in biotech research, for all I know.
But if I am an average voter watching him on TV, that will not be something I will know much about - because that is not what he is campaigning on.
> He wants a official declaration of War by congress as required by the Constitution.
It’s presumptuous of Ron Paul to purport to know the Constitution better than John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Adams, Jefferson and Madison all used military force with Congressional authorization.
If you want to fool yourself into believing that fairy tale, you are entitled. The sad truth is that despite Bush's "strategic" move (actually it was a lame attempt at Clintonesque triangulation) we are closer to full scale socilized medicine than ever before. The "left" has found plenty of new arguments and it is on a roll. Thus, even in pratical term this strategic ploy proved all too clever and those who supported it now have egg on their "pragmatic" faces.
> Remove the Taliban. Go home and leave a vacuum of power in Afghanistan. Wait for the next attack. No thanks.
Also, Ron Paul’s supporters hide behind the “Congress should declare war” mantra when they defend his votes on Iraq. They ignore the fact that Paul voted to authorize force in Afghanistan without a declaration of war.
The whole point of Ron Paul is that he takes no political risk.
He votes against almost everything, so both Democrats and Republicans woo him when they need an extra vote on a close issue.
When he feels the political temperature of the country going Democrat on the war, all of a sudden he is increasingly vocal on the Democrat side of the issue. The GOP expects zero loyalty from him anyway, so it's win/win for Ron.
You're an authority on Ron Paul - what specific legislation has he recently drafted to concretely combat government spending outside of defense spending?
Just one bill - not asking for multiple examples.
That's an excellent point.
Thanks for bringing that up.
Nope, just one in history. That gives me the knowledge why this will be a failure.
I am reminded for some reason of that scene from Animal House. Yes, that's much more your speed.
Not really. But when talking to the 'faithful' one has to go with simple and sometimes funny examples that possibly could make you see a simple comparison and keep your attention. Your attention span is limited to the amount of time between official edicts from the White House. No thinking on your own, just espousal of Republican talking points. And as I figured that movie was after 1950 (the limits of 'conservative' memories as shown time and again), I assumed you would know of the movie.
I had forgotten - the truly important thing is that money is being spent. We need to save that money for the jizya we'll have to pay after our foreordained defeat. As usual, you really have your priorities straight.
And as usual you don't. I could care less for 'freedom' in another country if we're paying for that freedom as our Constitution does not cover that nation, nor was it intended to be used to spread 'freedom' to that nation.
To hear him talk, his fiscal conservatism only seems to come into play when it is a question of defense spending.
Lesson over. I can't carry on a conversation with someone that doesn't know the facts. It is clear you don't even know Dr. Paul's stance as his fiscal conservatism is far reaching past just defense.
No now pay attention this time. What I am saying is this. Thanks to the GOP Hillary as POTUS is now a far more serious matter than it was in 2000. The GOP was power drunk and gave their beloved W anything and everything he asked for all in the name of the W.O.T. Of course there was also the cheer-leading voters who thought it was all a good idea because THEIR party was in power the short sighted sheep they are. Hillary would now have The Patriot Act and DHS as well. The GOP has tried to make Bush a king in the same manner the DEMs tried to do with FDR.
As should have been done.
Exactly, and if Ron Paul had been POTUS he had no issues with cheaper and effective means of dealing with such issues.
Now IF Bush had done with this war what is supposed to happen in war our troops would have been home two years ago and Iraq would be in ruins. But Bush is a hypocrite and turned the war from day one into a nation building project instead of a traditional war where the enemy is taken out ASAP at all cost. IF Ron Paul had to take us to war I highly doubt we would have been seeing our troops being abused in such a manner. He would have ordered a quick and precise mission with the elimination of the enemy as the primary military objective and no nation building.
The Left argues in general that "There are 40 million uninsured! People are dying!" etc., etc.
But the uninsured, as we know do not vote as a bloc.
The elderly do vote much more like a bloc.
And the best, really the only, argument the Left had for them to support fully socialized healthcare was prescription cost.
The Left was depending on them to drive socialized medicine to completion - and now they aren't as exercised about it as they were.
Well....they’ve already recruited Romney who, of course, has pushed even faster for socialization than Bush.
Of course. Any responsible historian will gladly brag that he has the ability to unerringly predict the future.
Your attention span is limited to the amount of time between official edicts from the White House.
Have you ever actually posted an argument of substance? Or is it to be all petty sniping like this?
I would expect that a learned historian and a prophet of your stature would bring more to the table.
I could care less for 'freedom' in another country if we're paying for that freedom as our Constitution does not cover that nation
Interesting terminology. It implies that in your view, the Constitution is basically a low-premium insurance policy.
While I believe that the more free countries in the world there are, the more potential security assets the US has, my main concern isn't political freedom in Iraq but fighting terrorists abroad on a ground of our choosing.
It is clear you don't even know Dr. Paul's stance as his fiscal conservatism is far reaching past just defense.
Oh, I acknowledge that he talks the talk when TV cameras aren't on him - when the light is blinking he does seem to forget all that in favor of whining about Iraq, though.
But I ask again: can any Paul booster show me serious concrete legislative efforts he's undertaken to systematically reduce non-defense spending?
You assume that Bush and Romney have the same goals.
Again, for the President, the prescription drug benefit was a strategic blocking move to avoid a more comprehensive Democratic program.
Romney is not a chief executive making hard choices - he is shilling desperately for votes and will apparently promise anything to anyone.
As his abortion record demonstrates.