Ron Paul: A Man Among Boys at ABC Debate
A tax cut is not a tax cut unlesss you cut spending to pay for it!
NC-At the ABC Debate on Saturday night, the moderator asked the Republicans about how they would address an issue truly affecting nearly every American almost daily–rising gas prices.
The other candidates talked about things like alternative fuels, getting us off the dependence on foreign oil, and increasing investment in technology. They also “addressed” the issue of gas prices by talking about global warming and greenhouse gases, how the oil companies were paying more to protect themselves in lawsuits than on research, and how high gas prices helped fund terrorists. I’m sorry, but what in Obama does this have to do with actually fixing the problem of surging gas prices?
Ron Paul was a doctor for many years. In that career he could have lost his job or killed a patient if he failed to accurately diagnose and actually address the real problem. The devotion and dedication he demonstrated to each individual patient in the past is much the same as the commitment he shows to each individual American and their rights now. His previous job experience and this devotion has made it impossible for him to dodge diagnosing and addressing real issues even today.
Which is why when he was asked about the gas price problem, instead of engaging in ridiculous political speak, he quoted the Wall Street Journal. The Journal ran an article showing that gas prices weren’t rising as rapidly anywhere else in the world. Only in America. Why? You see, the cost of gas isn’t rising, the value of the dollar is decreasing. Like I explained to my dad, the value of oil hasn’t increased, it just takes a lot more dollars to buy the same amount because the dollar is worth less.
This issue isn’t discussed openly because it doesn’t resonate with voters the way issues like “free health care” or “securing our borders” or “protecting us from terrorists” do. How many Americans even realize that the U.S. dollar is worth less than a Canadian Dollar? Using the Canadian Dollar as the benchmark, how many people know that after the terrorist attacks on 9/11 the dollar was stronger than it was in 2000? How many people realize that in 2002, when the war in Iraq began, the value of our dollar began to decrease? It hasn’t stopped its decline since, and is now reaching historical lows. As the data in the chart below indicates, it wasn’t the attacks of 9/11 that destroyed our dollar, it was our response to them.
John
That video is old news. Why not actually try and answer the questions John?
Not trying to “read into” Ron Paul’s decision, however, these days Ron Paul has to think about the “best offer” to achieve the “most exposure” and he no longer has to play the part of “beggars can’t be choosers” with where he appears. (No I’m not trying to dis Alex Jones here. In fact Thank you Alex Jones.)
Chris, regarding “victimless” laws. The people of the state have a right to have laws and incarceration against victimless crimes. However, the state should inform the voters exactly how much that costs them.
Most voters have no idea of how much they pay to incarcerate somebody for the 3rd time, (felony) they are caught for a misdemeanor pot offense as I believe some states do. However, what ever the case, you are correct that many in prison are there for a “victimless” crime.
Sgt. Mac said.
Just whom do you suppose will pay for it?
A vital tenet of our National Defense posture is based on certain pre-positioning, and removing our pre-positioned trrops and equipment would be tantamount to telling our enemies to “come on in!”
====================
You can’t afford to keep them overseas. That is my point. “waiting” for the day they are needed is only something a prosperous nation can afford. We can’t even afford the military we have when it is at home. The only way we can is by cutting maintenance of our infrastructure, raising taxes or borrowing more money.
It isn’t like we have a real choice in this area. We have to stop doing the bidding of the U.N.
Regarding the NATO. Apparently you don’t think they are a problem. I do, if for no other reason than they are socialist nations in many cases and think and act and make demands like socialist nations.
However, I do respect your opinion, just disagree with you that a sovereign nation of our size needs the alliance when we get nothing much from it but the “bills” for NATO spending.
We are sinking rather quickly now due to personal, state and city debt and that is because we send too much money to Washington that we could use in the states.
The risks you fear are small compared to the economic collapse we are facing once the boomer’s stop paying into the trust funds that are loaned to pay for things like defense.
We can’t afford to do what we are doing without making the coming crisis even worse. We have to find a way to get our spending and debt under control or the foreign nations, like OPEC and China and Russia that fund our military spending will stop lending us enough money even for home defense.
SgtMac
What about the facts?
Ron Paul said today that his number 1 issue is getting the troops home from all over the world…ahead of all that economic rhetoric you Paulheads tout.
The “Fair Tax” is a crock of crap bb. I’m surprised that even you would buy into it.
Do the math.
Jan Paul –
Now I see where we disagree. You don’t think we can afford to support our National Defense while I think we can’t afford not to.
We spend less on defense as a percentage of GDP than we have since the Reagan era, but our “social” spending continues to sky rocket.
The answer is simple; cut spending taxpayer money on free needles, socialized medicine, and other hard core leftist programs (yes, John, INCLUDING PORK PROJECTS), and start spending where the money does us all some good.
If you’ve read anything recently about the grounding of the majority of the F-15 aircraft fleet due to structural problems from over-use, you can readily see what’s happened to our military readiness.
While Putin and China continue to build advanced weapon systems, we can’t even convince those who allegedly “support” the troops to upgrade our own equipment.
The Ferderal Government has the Constitutional responsibility to provide for the National Defense, but it has no such responsibility where pork projects and social programs are concerned. Therein lies the problem. A vote for the leftists, including Ron Paul, is a vote for further deterioration of our military capability and another step closer to socialism.
Boortz description of what happened yesterday with Ron Paul:
Ok … now all of you left-wing anti-war moonbats and other various Ron Paul supporters can back off on all your emails asking me when I’m going to have Paul on my show.
Yesterday, while we were broadcasting from New Hampshire, we set aside two segments for a visit from Ron Paul. His campaign told Belinda he would be there. Sure enough, at the appointed hour, Ron Paul walks into radio row. He sits down to be interviewed by several radio shows, including that of my Jones Radio stablemate (and all-around good guy) Ed Schultz. Me? He walked right on by. Refused to do the interview. His campaign staff told Belinda that he wouldn’t appear on my show because of some of the things I’ve said about him on the radio. I guess that would be my repeated assertions that I could not support Ron Paul, even though he gets many things essentially right, because he cannot be depended on to protect this country from Islamic fascism.
So .. there you go. No real loss, because Ron Paul is going absolutely nowhere in this campaign. No sense wasting any more time on him and the flakes supporting him. Yes … I know that there are many sensible libertarians in Paul’s camp. Your voices aren’t being heard .. .they’re being drowned out by the peace-at-any-price crowd that has hijacked Paul’s campaign.
Boortz obviously doesn’t get it. And I wonder what other insults were directed at Dr. Paul along the way. I do remember when he called Gov. Zell Miller “Ziggy” on the air. But back to Boortz’s continual recycling of the the “spoon fed” concept if “Islamofascism”. In fact, the irony of ironys might be that the people who repeat this stuff would only do so in order to rally support for the war. Sacrificing issue oriented air time for first grade level talking points. This might be considered a type of fascism too. In my humble opinion, this should play ZERO role in our foreign policy. What’s next, “Jewofascism”? Why don’t these guys focus on how these boneheads got the weapons in the first place?