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.
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.