There’s been some discussion about Ron Paul and spending, and I thought I’d make a topic specifically to talk about this since all non-Ron Paul threads eventually becomes Ron Paul threads, I thought I’d just cut to the chase.

The theory that Ron Paul and the Ronulans put out is that Ron Paul would scale back spending to the point that when future National Intelligence Estimates are devised they’re printed on both sides, in black and white, and held together by an old rubber band rather then bound in a book.

But, like most of Ron Paul’s platform I think it misses a huge reality – Congress likes to spend money.

Let’s examine the Bush years for a moment. Spending under President Bush has risen approximately a hundred billion percent (give or take a penny). One of the culprits here is Bush’s insistence on expanding entitlements, but that’s not the whole picture. The other part of the picture is that everyone knew that President Bush wouldn’t veto a spending bill coming from his own party. As such Congress didn’t have to negotiate priorities, because it knew it would get everything it asked for all the time. It wasn’t until the Democrats took over Congress that President Bush discovered he had a veto pen, and even then it was really only for political reasons.

Ron Paul looks at this example and comes up with exactly the wrong solution, to veto everything. The problem with that is simple, congress can override a veto. Ron Paul is intent to not work with Congress but rather to bend it to his will by closing cabinets, agencies, and over all shrinking the government down to two guys with sling shots patrolling the border (which is two more then President Bush wants).

The reality is though that rather then stopping congressional spending it will encourage the spending. Once the President is clear that he won’t be partner on budget negotiations Congress will work amongst itself to pass budget bills that the President can’t over-ride. And how will congress corral enough votes together to insure passage?

If you answered, it will buy those votes with your tax payer money then you get a gold star. Without a responsible White House to hold the line on spending increases congress be unrestrained. If a President can say to congress “the budget can grow ‘x’ this year” then good faith negotiations can take place between the two parties.

So what keeps congress from banding together to just override the President in that instance? Well, the voters still matter to some degree (believe it or not). Provided the President comes to the table with a plan that is palatable to the public the public will punish congress for rejecting it out of hand and brokering hugely wasteful spending bills. On the other hand, if the President merely says “you’ll spend nothing and like it” it’s a much tougher sell to a public that is addicted to government.

Which is why I repeatedly state that incremental change is the only way to fly. Sure, it sucks waiting for results to one day materialize (and with no guarantee that they ever will). But it’s worse knowing that the President has dug his heels in on a politically indefensible position that gives congress carte blanche to be as irresponsible as it can imagine. And Ron Paul would do the latter.

Dr Paul campaign is a political and philosophical campaign.

Americans have been subjected to fascistic governmental policies since 1935. Children who attend public schools have been bombarded with state supremacy propaganda from infancy.

So Dr Paul is fighting an uphill battle ; he can not reverse a philosophical trend overnight. All the presidential candidates have told Americans that the government owes them a living....except of course Dr. Paul. There are a gazillion government agencies from AAA to ZZZ who will fight to continue their survival.

Addiction whether to drugs or government largesse is bad for you . Go ahead and have a tantrum if you must. But he can not water down his principles in order to get elected.

So, you're saying, when Ron Paul and the Ronulans talk about everything he'll accomplish as President they're lying and they know it?

Up until now I had thought him delusional, not insincere.

But, to move past the snark, that really goes to show how unserious the Ronulans and their candidate are about affecting change.

If your platform is "You should all change right now right away, and if you don't want to I'm not going to do anything to work towards affecting change" that strikes me as being all bluster with no real conviction.

Its really a meaningless campaign. I'm all for working for small government, but oddly Ron Paul and his people aren't for that. They want instant overnight magical change and if they can't have it they want to call the rest of us names.

Americans are aware , or should be, that there are three branches of government. They also should know that there are fascists in the Congress and the federal judiciary.

So any of those branches can interfere will those Paul's plans.

But what are his plans? A second ago his campaign was just political and philosophical. Now you seem to be saying that it would be substantive if not for the man keeping him down.

What is the point you are trying to make?

You are mistaking his goals, and what he thinks can actually be accomplished. He states he wants to eliminate the Welfare/Warfare state, but says that there will be a large transition period.

When he says "I would eliminate the income tax", that is a goal. That doesn't mean it will be done during his tenure, but we could move on our way towards abolishing it.

He actually hasn't made any campaign promises on what he would have done before the end of his tenure other than the massive scaling back of American Imperialism.

Any person who isn't an idiot knows that the president does not have the power to single handedly abolish the income tax, or change the entire social security system, but he can veto any legislation counter to those goals, and move the country towards them.

__________________

Heh. You think policies like social security and the income tax are fascistic? If anything, you saying that is proof that Americans are so well-off that they take the many freedoms and high quality of life they enjoy for granted. I suggest you visit a county like Burma, North Korea, or Iran before complaining about Roosevelt's New Deal policies.

We've already established that your attacks on the public school system are completely unsubstantiated. You can't make such absurd claims about an institution you know nothing about. You yourself admitted that you haven't attended a public school for something like 40 years, so why do you continue to push forth these baseless allegations?

__________________

Using this trite term implies that America is an empire. I must admit, I'm interested in knowing where her colonies have been established.

__________________

New Imperialism has no colonies, it does however have military presence in nearly every country on earth, asserts its power over sovereign nations, secretly tries to overthrow governments, and wages unprovoked wars for national gain.

What America does now with its foreign policy is simply modern imperialism. We use the CIA to overthrow governments we don't like, we invade nations when we don't like their policies, and use our influence to assert authority over the policies of other nations.

__________________