Posted on 06/29/2009 2:12:59 PM PDT by fiscon1
In my last column, I joked that with public spending out of control and the piling on of the international bailout bill, economic collapse seems to be the goal of Congress. It is getting harder to joke about such a thing however, as the non-partisan General Accounting Office (GAO) has estimated that the administration's health care plan would actually cost over a trillion dollars. This reality check may have given us a temporary reprieve on this particular disastrous policy, however an equally disastrous energy policy reared its ugly head on Capitol Hill last week.
(Excerpt) Read more at campaignforliberty.com ...
CAP AND TAX will end many Congressional careers.
Ron Paul often makes a lot of sense.
Too bad about his foreign policy.
he’s a true believer libertarian. On foreign policy, that’s where I diverge from his belief system.
Communism will lead to Capital Flight.
On 2nd thought.
Obamanism will lead to Capital Flight.
Declaring war and destroying our enemies instead of trying to make democracies out of them is bad?
That’s a red herring.
>CAP AND TAX will end many Congressional careers.
If the ballot box is tampered w/ to ensure that they are still in office (ie ANY irregularities) I would not be surprised that the ammo box should be recruited to end their term.
IOW, unless they play VERY carefully by the rules from here on out, I expect things to NOT end well for them. Speaking of which, I should probably start investing in arson insurance on their houses, right? ;)
But only after it ends many of ours.
Boehner was an unexpected bright light in this, but in general I expect the GOP to fight this as much as capons at a cockfight.
THEY VOTED FOR MEASURES THAT WERE NOT ONLY NOT READ BUT NOT EVEN WRITTEN AT THE TIME OF THE VOTE!!!!!
(to be hung around the neck of every rat congress man who voted for this turkey.)
That’s why I think he’d do well with a tempering effect like a Paul/Palin 2012 ticket. Foreign policy IS indeed his weak spot, but having someone in position to help him recruit competent ambassadors and other foreign advisers would counter that.
By the way, for anyone interested here is Congressman Kirk’s statement on why he voted for cap and trade.
“For 2009, our top goal should be energy independence. I support exploring for energy off our coasts, expanding nuclear power and building a natural gas pipeline across Canada to lower heating costs in the Midwest – an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy. As a Navy veteran, I think it is time to set America’s policy towards defunding Middle Eastern dictatorships by cutting our foreign oil bill, giving our troops less to worry about. That is why during the debate on the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) bill, I voted for the Republican Forbes (R-VA) Substitute, based on the text of the New Manhattan Project for Energy Independence, H.R. 513. Our “Manhattan” energy bill set a goal of reducing our dependence on foreign oil by 50% in 10 years and 100% in 20 years. The bill cost $24 billion but would eliminate the $400 billion Americans currently spend on foreign oil. The bill backed solar, wind, hydro, clean coal and nuclear power. It enhanced research, especially in nuclear fusion, bio-fuels, carbon-capture systems and efficiency upgrades. Unfortunately, this bill was defeated by a vote of 172 to 255.
While less ideal than the Forbes Substitute, the underlying ACES bill would still lower our dependence on foreign oil by diversifying American energy production. As a veteran of the Desert Storm and Enduring Freedom missions, I believe it is time to break the boom and bust cycle of high gas prices and the need to deploy three separate armies to the Middle East (Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom).
With regard to the main thrust of the ACES bill, I am also concerned about growing air pollution, both from our country and overseas. I do not think we should ignore this problem. While the ACES bill is overly complicated, I voted in favor of the legislation to address these problems, looking forward to major improvements in the Senate. I would have preferred a bill that focused more on energy independence and less on some of the complications in the ACES bill. Nevertheless, the 1990 Clean Air Act signed by President Bush established a cap-and-trade system to reduce acid rain that proved to be a great, low-cost success. Much of the poisoned lakes in the east and New England have recovered from acid rain. In the coming Senate debate, I hope we can repeat this environmental success and aggressively back a national program to defund Iran and Venezuela by reducing America’s need for foreign oil.”
No, it's the truth.
That’s a lot of nice rhetoric but that’s simply not reality.
What Paul wants is seek and destroy missions that kill Al Qaeda. That won’t work. You can’t get the kind of intelligence necessary to seek and destroy them without having people on the ground. So, what do we do? Do we have a massive ground war that destroys Al Qaeda and then leave, leaving a battered country for the poor folks still left to pick up.
His entire foreign policy is entirely theoretical.
Why doesn’t this lying sack of s*** come clean and tell us what he stands to personnally benefit from his vote. Mercenary, pure and simple. (I’m giving him the benefit of doubt that he’s not just plain stupid.)
I was refering to Kirk
Ron Paul doesn’t believe in destroying our enemies, he believes in bringing all of our troops home from all over the world. He doesn’t believe in declaring war, he believes in staying out of it completely. He doesn’t support Israel, and he believes neither should the US government. He believes 9/11 was America’s fault, and we got what we deserved for our support of Israel.
Why would Palin be on a 2012 ticket?
She already had her shot in 2008 and lost.
No one is going to pick her to be their runningmate, especially after her first disastrous run, most especially Ron Paul, (who would never win the GOP nomination anyways) who is not very keen on her at all.
>most especially Ron Paul, (who would never win the GOP nomination anyways) who is not very keen on her at all.
IIRC, Teddy Roosevelt as a VP was not particularly fond of the president.
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.