[wideawake]

Ron Paul is RIGHT on the money.

Except that his math is wrong, and that he ignores historical reality: spending usually increases drastically in wartime.

Compared to spending increases in past overseas deployments (where public debt typically increased from 50-100%), spending increases have been minimal.

Ron Paul's equation is simple: If we stab our troops in the back by cutting off their funding, then the taxpayer will save a bunch.

Those savings will then presumably come in handy for paying the jizya.

[The_Eaglet]

Ron Paul's equation is simple: If we stab our troops in the back by cutting off their funding, then the taxpayer will save a bunch.

Paul never proposed stabbing troops in the back. He has great ideas to reduce the tax burden beginning with a simple concept: the United States Constitution.

[Jack Black]

Come on. The war spending is not the issue. Look at a budget pie chart. The entitelments are what are killing us! Here is a nice chart of defense spending from the Heritage Foundation:

We are spending under norms, despite the war.

Also, the idea that if we don't do whatever we will be wearing burkhas is very tired. The muzzies are not a conventional military threat, and they will never have a serious impact on American culture. They are like a big crop of lake flies, intensely irritating, but not a threat to our continued existence.

The attempt to pump them up to Nazi level existential threat are also getting very old, and discredit us.

[JoinJuniorAchievement]

Ron Paul's equation is simple: If we stab our troops in the back by cutting off their funding, then the taxpayer will save a bunch.

Please don't slander him. He wants a official declaration of War by congress as required by the Constitution.

And he is not privy to the Geopolitical situation until he gets elected as potus.

[Oberon]

...spending usually increases drastically in wartime...

Oh. Well then, that doesn't count I guess...

[mjolnir]

Well said, Wideawake. The relevant stat here should not be absolute debt-—that’s meaningless without a context-— but debt-to-GDP. The former stat is the favorite of “Fiscal hawks” like the late Paul Tsongas who want to balance the budget by raising taxes. While Ron Paul never votes to do that, his sky-is-falling rhetoric has long been an aid to such crippling schemes.

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.

[untrained skeptic]

Ron Paul is an isolationist libertarian.

The war in Iraq is not a battle he would fight. He would have us pull back to within our borders and fight the terrorists when they come to us, and possibly perform limited strikes against them if they were clearly an imminent threat.

As a libertarian, he's definitely fiscally conservative. He would simply gut the government. I support that to a great extent, but I cannot support his isolationism, and I think that he would be a horrible President for our country right now.

We cannot afford to retreat from the war on terror. Hiding at home will not make us safer.

[mad_as_he$$]

It also helps that the country hasn’t paid for the Civil War yet.