Replies

Answering for Ron Paul is presumptious, but he is unlikely to join the conversation.

"I have not seen him focus on Welfare with anything approaching the same vigor."

I think this might have something to do with the scope of the Presidency, and what can actually be done once in office. IOW: the President has quite a bit of control over the military, but not so much over Congress.

"Why does Ron go ape over the cost of the War on Terrorism.."

Not only the cost in terms of money, but lives of our military personnel, and the overall loss of freedom to Americans. Furthermore, the whole way in which it was "sold" to the American people and Congress was, at best, misleading. IOW: the "WOT" is extremely expansive of the Executive Branch, and yields continual military action anywhere in the world, and against anyone the President wishes. Knowing the propensity of humans to aggregate more power to themselves, it could also mean government troops taking action against its own citizens.

That's how I would answer if I were Ron Paul.

Answering for Ron Paul is presumptious, but he is unlikely to join the conversation.

"I have not seen him focus on Welfare with anything approaching the same vigor."

I think this might have something to do with the scope of the Presidency, and what can actually be done once in office. IOW: the President has quite a bit of control over the military, but not so much over Congress.

My perception was that I had heard Ron spouting off concerning the War on Terrorism all the time, but had seldom if ever heard him talking about welfare. I went to Google and ran two searches. The first was "Ron Paul Welfare". I found 9,310,000 results. LINK The second was "Ron Paul War on Terrorism". I found 120,000,000 results. LINK By appearances, it would seem Paul spent only 7.76% as much time talking about Welfare as he did on the War on Terrorism.

War is an important issue. It deserves more air-time. I just don't understand the frequent claim that the United States can't afford projects like the War on Terrorism at a cost of $1.25 trillion over ten years, but an unconstittuional effort that has cost us nearly five times as much, hasn't been called a threat to this nation. Perhaps I'm just not recollecting as well as I should. Perhaps you've heard him speak in those terms.

"Why does Ron go ape over the cost of the War on Terrorism.."

Not only the cost in terms of money, but lives of our military personnel, and the overall loss of freedom to Americans. Furthermore, the whole way in which it was "sold" to the American people and Congress was, at best, misleading. IOW: the "WOT" is extremely expansive of the Executive Branch, and yields continual military action anywhere in the world, and against anyone the President wishes. Knowing the propensity of humans to aggregate more power to themselves, it could also mean government troops taking action against its own citizens.

I believe that the United States has opted to forgo the option to declare wars seeking to reduce the likelihood that nations not inclined to be involved, might forgo entering into conflicts out of sense of duty by agreement. One could look at it as keeping our options open. Should the U. S. narrow it's options? Some would say yes, the issue of wars is too important. I would entertain that option at times, but I also think we should keep the non-declarative war option on the table too. If it seems as if we could keep the conflict from spreading, involving more nations, it would be best in the interest of our troops and national interests.

The non-declarative war has become evidence to some people, that the president acts unilaterally. I think that is a mistaken notion. Yes the president can introduce troops, but he still has to come back to Congress for authorization. In the case of the War on Terrorism, President Bush obtained an authorization for war up front. Please use this LINK to read the resolution approved by both chambers of the 107th Congress on September 18th, 2001.

That's how I would answer if I were Ron Paul.

I don't believe you're far off base with your responses, related to what Ron Paul would say.