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 ...
You are ignoring conservative Republicans, Constitutionalists, Libertarians, and independents.
National defense is the troops’ responsibility. Global policing, at the expense of American taxpayers and lives, is not.
By definition, conservatives and Republicans don't stab American fighting forces in the back.
Conservative Republicans are not on board with this garbage.
The cranks who label themselves "Old Right" or "palaeoconservatives" are, however.
And yes, you can certain add the Libertarians and the self-styled "Constitution Party" to the list of cranks as well.
Independents, by definition, are an amorphous group who do not take unified policy stands.
Correct.
That is generally true, and also true for Constitutionalists, Libertarians, and other conservatives. The fact that so many oppose liberal use of our troops in non-defensive activities is evidence of how far to the left the GOP leadership has wandered, especially at the expense of the borders of the United States, taxpayers, and the men and women killed on the other side of the world.
Nice rhetoric.
"Liberal use" - what Teddy Roosevelt called using a weasel word: you use the term "liberal" aimlessly, trying to tar the administration with that label.
"Non-defensive activities" - non-defensive according to whom? Grand Marshal The_Eaglet?
Let me guess - you also think that the Cold War was a waste of time and that intervention in WWII was unjustified, because taking the faraway beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima did not constitute defending American soil.
I liked (still like) Allen. Personally I don’t think Thompson will run. He isn’t yet and I don’t think it’s likely. But I could be wrong. He isn’t Reagan, that is for sure.
Right now I like Paul, although I highly doubt he will get the nomination. I’ve liked his stance on most things, some not more then others. He is too far outside the duopoly policies to be considered.
I like that he wants to get rid of the tax system as it is right now, (I hate the fact that I have to report interest I’ve paid and made, I hate the fact that I have to tell the gov what charities I give to, what office equipment I buy, how many miles I drive...etc) I like his championship of secure boarders, of the second amendment. I really like the fact he tried to bring back the letter of Marque to fight terror and proposed that pilots should be able to carry a weapon after 911. Among other things.
I am not using the term “liberal” aimlessly. I am using it in the context of the original article for this thread. The present administration’s fiscal policy is big government liberalism, worse than that of William Jefferson Clinton.
I wholeheartedly agree.
The fact that you parrot Democrat rhetoric about the powers of the Bush administration and that you apparently have no issue with a Hillary Clinton presidency per se informs me that you are not a serious interlocutor.
Why I'm bothering I don't know because I have much better things to do. The Constitution is clear but we can't let that document get in the way of 'victory'.
But beyond affirming executive supremacy in matters of war, what is George Bush going to do? It is simply untrue that we are making decisive progress in Iraq. The indicators rise and fall from day to day, week to week, month to month. In South Vietnam there was an organized enemy. There is clearly organization in the strikes by the terrorists against our forces and against the civil government in Iraq, but whereas in Vietnam we had Hanoi as the operative headquarters of the enemy, we have no equivalent of that in Iraq, and that is a matter of paralyzing importance. All those bombings, explosions, assassinations: we are driven to believe that they are, so to speak, spontaneous.--William F Buckley
I suppose Mr. Buckley must not be a 'serious interlocutor' either. After all what has he done for the conservative movement compared to the as yet unknown actions of wideawake?
I am reminded for some reason of that scene from Animal House where they tell Bluto the 'war's over' and his response is so 'Republican'. 'Nothing is over until we say it's over'. What do the Deltas do? They go out, create havoc, and yet are still suspended from school. In effect a futile, albeit very funny, episode. In this case however nothing is funny. Troops will continue to die, Iraqis will continue to die, money will continue to be wasted, and yet the situation will, as history as shown us in the Middle East contrary to wideawake's wishful hopings, eventually fail. For multiple reasons outlined by non Republican conservatives much more intelligent than myself.
And yet El Presidente continues to throw my money down the pit.
At least you've moved away from the Ron Paul 'lied' rhetoric. That was just demeaning to watch someone beat themselves into the ground with nonsense...Face it, Paul is the only fiscal conservative running.
Do I detect some sarcasm here?
There are other fiscal conservatives running for President, but Ron Paul has the best record of them all.
Yet you and Paul apparently can't read it with comprehension.
And yes, I know - you will respond that you have a degree in Constitutional Law now.
I suppose Mr. Buckley must not be a 'serious interlocutor' either.
He can be serious when he wants to be - he can also be the most gossamer socialite imaginable.
But more on point: what precisely is his argument here? That we lost Vietnam because the enemy was so well organized and that we will lose Iraq because the enemy is not well organized?
I am reminded for some reason of that scene from Animal House
Yes, that's much more your speed.
And yet El Presidente continues to throw my money down the pit.
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.
At least you've moved away from the Ron Paul 'lied' rhetoric.
When did I do that?
Ron "Term Limits" Paul is a confirmed liar.
That certainly hasn't changed.
Face it, Paul is the only fiscal conservative running.
To hear him talk, his fiscal conservatism only seems to come into play when it is a question of defense spending.
Ron Paul: Penny wise, pound foolish.
Here's where we fundamentally disagree in philosophy and practical strategy. Those who are for Bush's massive expansion of socialized medicine, and yet claim to be for free markets or limited goverment, don't have a leg to stand on either morally or pragmatically.
Paul doesn't "ignore it" anything at all, at least compared to his critics. To the contrary, those who vote for more socialized mediine in the name of avoiding "something worse" are ignoring the obvious of realities of how government generally grows e.g. incrementally and insideously.
By choosing to throw half a towel in the ring rather than the whole towel, the defenders of the Bush plan are showing themselves to be strategic babes in the woods. If you want evidence, please note tht despite their "pragmatic" plan, the country is plunging headlong toward socialized medicine faster than ever before.
You have not listened.
That's a complete bait-and-switch which proves my point.
You spoke of the "liberal use" of military force.
Now you claim that you were discussing liberal spending instead of military force.
Quit weaseling around.
Our use of military force is and has been judicious and considered.
The Bush administration's defense spending, measured as a percentage of GDP, has been quite conservative.
Even if I were to blindly accept your obvious wholesale revision of your original statement, you are still completely wrong.
That’s not bait-and-switch; that’s staying on topic.
This administration inherited a Medicare/Medicaid system that covered physician services and hospitalization fees, but not prescription medication.
The uncovered status of prescription medication was the main argument the Left had in favor of a completely socialized, Canada-style health system. This was the issue that they could use to get the powerful senior citizen voting block to accept a National Health Service.
The prescription drug benefit eviscerated healthcare as a front burner issue for senior voters.
The Left will continue to push for a National Health Service, of course, but a key voting bloc they were counting on has now been largely neutralized.
It was a strategic move, not an ideological embrace of socialism.
You said "liberal use" of military force, and then said you were referring to liberal spending.
Bait-and-switch is a punctiliously accurate, and I might add the politest, way to characterize your deceptive move there.
Oh, I have. He prattles on and on about rolling back every bureaucracy in the government at his leisure.
That's very sweet of Ron.
But when it comes to the media and press time he is the "anti-war Republican", the "Republican who voted against Iraq", the "maverick House Republican."
He trades on his opposition to defense spending.
And everyone knows it.
Liberal use of military force _is_ liberal spending.
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.