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 don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future – and yours.
(Excerpt) Read more at fxstreet.com ...
Military (defense isn't the right term) spending has increased as the above graph shows.
Also, since you are "intimately familiar" with Medicare/Medicaid why don't you (the expert that you are) mention that Ron Paul is the only candidate in the race who actually voted against Bush's massive increase of these programs via the prescription drugs boondogle? As someone who is "intimately familiar" with these programs, of course, you know that it was the greatest expansion of the welfare state (in terms of "numbers" since LBJ.
Talk is cheap but Ron Paul, unlike the other candidates, actually takes action with regard to actually cutting Medicaid/Medicare.
Your post contains a bunch of delightful cliches.
Let's unpack them.
an originalist like Mr. Paul
Many people claim to be originalists. Ron Paul's claim to be the one true originalist has to be judged on the merits of his positions and arguments.
He is not being criticized for being an originalist, but for being wrong on key issues.
Who has slandered him?
Has he been accused of extramarital affairs, or accepting bribes or other false claims?
Or has he been criticized for putting his fiscal priorities before the national defense?
Can all criticisms of Ron Paul be dismissed as slander?
Is it impossible for someone to legitimately criticize him, or is he supernaturally beyond all human reproach?
on a “conservative” discussion site
Ah, yes - "conservative" in scare quotes. In other words, anyone who disagrees with Ron paul can never be authentically conservative, because Ron Paul's view of the world is conservatism itself and anyone who disagrees with him is a heretic.
Nevermind the fact that Ron Paul himself is actually a self-identified libertarian.
The Republic is lost.
This is hilarious.
Translation: "If anyone dares to criticize my personal hero, Ron Paul, America as we know it has ceased to exist."
This is not only puerile, but defeatist. Hey, just like Ron Paul!
Ron Paul is also a self-identified conservative, and he has demonstrated this in Congress (yes, I have studied his record).
Nice fisk above.
I have a lot of libertarian leanings, but Ron Paul’s brainpower is a myth.
Just as I said it did.
You imply that I stated that defense spending declined or was unchanged - I said nothing of the kind.
Also, since you are "intimately familiar" with Medicare/Medicaid
I am not, nor did I ever claim to be.
Your entire mode of argument, rather than dealing with facts, seems to be predicated on putting words in people's mouths so you can whack at straw men.
Ron Paul is the only candidate in the race who actually voted against Bush's massive increase of these programs via the prescription drugs boondogle?
In other words, Ron Paul believes that the best policy is to give the Democrats as many excuses as they need to enact fully socialized medicine. Bravo.
As someone who is "intimately familiar" with these programs, of course, you know that it was the greatest expansion of the welfare state (in terms of "numbers" since LBJ.
If you fiddle with statistics you can produce any numbers you want and make any claim you want.
Apparently you missed the entire Nixon presidency.
Talk is cheap but Ron Paul, unlike the other candidates, actually takes action with regard to actually cutting Medicaid/Medicare.
Is that the actual action he actuates?
In point of fact, Ron Paul has never undertaken any legislative initiatives to significantly reduce funding for Medicaid or Medicare.
Given his district, he has to be.
He ran and will run again for president on the Libertarian Party ticket - but he never campaigns in his home district on his support of legalizing drugs.
My, how judicious of this rock-ribbed conservative!
Your comments above prove that you haven't.
Ron Paul is a typical isolationist socially radical libertarian whose ACU rating is only 83-— roughly Mike DeWine or John McCain territory. He’s a great libertarian but a piss-poor conservative.
Silly me.
You are absolutely right.
We shouldn't have spent a dime to defeat the Imperial Japanese Navy - that wasn't a necessary expenditure, just sheer waste of taxpayer money.
Yes.
It's stupid to think about global geopolitics and demographic reality.
If we don't think about militant Islam, it will go away.
What a brilliantly Marxist statement.
I didn't know the Constitution was drafted primarily as a proletarian counterbalance to wealthy private citizens.
Do go on.
At this point, I do not have one.
An ideal candidate would be a electable man of character who is strong on terror and on life issues.
These qualifications eliminate the entire field.
I confess that I would be interested in learning more about Fred Thompson, but I haven't done the legwork yet - and even when I do, it's hard to have more to go on than his personal assurances.
As of now, I'm backing no one.
I also don't get what you mean by the following: In other words, Ron Paul believes that the best policy is to give the Democrats as many excuses as they need to enact fully socialized medicine. Bravo.
By this, do you imply that Dubya's massive expansion of Medicare/Medicaid via the prescription drugs program is a good thin? I just want to make this clear.
that’s “good thing.”
I haven’t the time for you today. Some other time, perhaps...but soon.
No, it is a bad thing.
The real question is: was it necessary to avoid something even worse?
That's a question honest people can debate.
Or one can simply ignore the debate and carp, like Ron Paul.
Of course not.
I'm sure you and your Black Bloc friends have to take some direct action against the oligarchs today.
Some other time, perhaps...but soon.
Yes, as a running dog lackey of the capitalist exploiters of the worker, I am always being reminded that my time is coming soon.
Apparently if you are a Ron Paul supporter you believe the word "slander" means: "pointing to Ron Paul's record."
He wants a official declaration of War by congress as required by the Constitution.
There is no such Constitutional requirement. Congress is indeed specifically empowered by the Constitution to declare war, but the Constitution does not restrain Congress from authorizing the Executive to pursue warfare at discretion.
And he is not privy to the Geopolitical situation until he gets elected as potus.
What does that even mean? As a member of Congress he is privy to almost all, and is expected to vote on many, geopolitical situations.
He has made his stand clear - he thinks that his own idiosyncratic interpretation of the Constitution has more value than the lives of America's fighting men and women.
You're trying to provide him the flimsiest of excuses for his behavior, but he remains beneath contempt.
So, you aren't backing anyone. Why waste your time bashing Dr. Paul? Personally I think Dr. Paul is a man of character, he could be strong on Terror, although it would be in a different manner than what we see today, as would many of his plans and opinions. He is pro-life, Pro-Gun and strong on immigration issues. More so then any of the others in the field currently and isn't afraid to say it. Now is he electable? That's up to the voters.
Many Republicans would rather we bankrupt ourselves first rather than find alternatives to a strictly military response to the WOT. Let’s see if they’re singing the same tune 5 years from not when the dollar collapses and their spending power and net worth is reduced by half as we are forced to devalue the dollar to be able to service our debt. It was LBJ’s ‘great society’ programs and the Vietnam war costs that led to Nixon going off the gold standard and inflation to spiral thru the roof during the Ford and Carter administrations. We can expect a repeat of those times coming up soon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.