Not just military spending - pretty much all government spending. And it's not like he's exactly slashing the military budget - it's going to down to 2006 levels.
But again, this is why the country is going to end up like Greece - no one can bear to cut any funding for their own pet projects. By all means, lets throw more money at a defense that has proven to be staggeringly ineffective in Iraq and Afghanistan, and cannot produce a single military vehicle that isn't years late, not as effective as originally thought to be, and massively overpriced..
Anyway, he does want to end Social Security, but at the same time, it's not something you do overnight. He has to let it run its course for current recipients, but scrap it after that.
Which areas are unrealistic or wrong? It shows Medicare and SS spending going up over the next four years, and tax revenue going down. Even so, it still balances the budget in three years.
A detailed plan deserves a more detailed response.
Less US involvement in foreign adventures, less expenditure on the military, at least as much spent on programs that many of us have relied upon rightly or wrongly) for support in our old age, no support for flaky left-wing sociology, reasonable support for moderate social conservatism. What's not to like? Well, there's the libertarian thing, but I can be forgiving sometimes. I'd be happier if his kid was named "Billy Bob" or even "Myron" instead of "Rand."
As long as he stays away from a new federal sales (consumption) tax, Ron Paul has my vote.
A year after the Iraq war and after Frum’s attempted purge, the New York Times went to William Kristol to ask him his thoughts on Iraq now that things weren’t moving as smoothly as he had hoped.
Kristol told the Times that John Kerry had the real answer to the problems there: we need to send more troops. Kristol explained that this agreement between the neocons and the Democrats should surprise no one:
I will take Bush over Kerry, but Kerry over Buchanan or any of the lesser Buchananites on the right. If you read the last few issues of The Weekly Standard, it has as much or more in common with the liberal hawks than with traditional conservatives.
Kristol continued, “If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me, too.”
Making “common cause” with the antiwar left was the first charge in Frum’s indictment that Buchanan and Novak had gone “far, far beyond” the bounds of permissible dissent.
Lest the White House not understand the implicit threat, Kristol added more; summed up in the Times‘ closing paragraph:
Recalling a famous saying of his father, the neoconservative pioneer Irving Kristol, that a neoconservative was “a liberal who has been mugged by reality,” the younger Mr. Kristol joked that now they might end up as neoliberals–defined as “neoconservatives who had been mugged by reality in Iraq.”
In short, Kristol was saying to the GOP, “if you don’t continue your Wilsonian march, we will find a party (maybe Wilson’s) that will.”
Again, no one should have been surprised. Kristol’s close ally, columnist Charles Krauthammer, never hid his admiration for Wilson, FDR and Truman, who he recently called “three giants of the twentieth century.” Neocon publisher Lord Conrad Black wrote a paean to FDR. Kristol has given LBJ the A-Okay.
The neocons–and they admit this–are hawks first, and Republicans or conservatives second.
There is no surprise, as Ron Paul has been a major participant in the Beltway Debacle for decades. He first arrived in 1976, and has a wonderful ability to do exactly the opposite of what he says - much like Newt Gingrich, the other Beltway Celebrity. Ron Paul, much like Gingrich, has been selling a con game for a long, long time, while he enjoys the fruits of the Federal Public Sector game.
Ironically, some in the Media are trying to sell Santorum as a potential Carter surprise in Iowa. This is interesting, for we know Rick entered Congress just five years after finishing his education to become a lawyer. Santorum entered Washington in 1991 and was defeated in 2007. He too is an entity primarily made in the Beltway, lacking serious private sector accomplishment, having no genuine executive experience, essential economic credentials, etc.
We see polls telling us "personality" is such a big factor, which continues to enable professional politicians making a mess in Our Government. We all know this has led to repeated failure in Our Government.
Ron Paul? Who's he? I didn't see that name listed in the NR, "Of these candidates, whom do you support" survey question list.
Seriously, that alternative list is a journalistic disgrace. Editorial essays are one thing, but gaming survey questions which should be complete and objective is something else entirely. Entirely oily that is.
NR should just go All Soviet and post the same question again with Mitt Romney as the only candidate.
Thanks for pointing that out, SteveM. Since another candidate is my first choice, I had somehow missed it.
Wow.
In NRO's shoes, I would not have done that. I assume they do not want a third-party bid. Nor do I.
The Grand Old Party's chances of being confronted with one are far less if we are seen to play fair in our nomination process. But given the behavior during the last few weeks of conservative leaders whom I once greatly respected, I am convinced that the odds now favor the GOP Establishment once again snatching defeat from the jaws of near-certain victory.
Ron Paul is a demented racist. The sane portion of the Republican party naturally regards him with abhorrence. For the Democrats, they probably can't believe their good fortune. Cordially, Bill
While the Weekly Standard has never struck me as much more than the neo-Jacobins' house journal, I used to regard the National Review as a little more respectable. No longer. May God continue to bless Dr Paul, and may He have mercy on you and your fellow travellers.
Ron Paul wouldn't be a problem nor a target of constant bashing if the Republican leadership had promoted a candidate that didn't put people to sleep and bore them to tears. It isn't Ron Paul's fault that the Republican leadership is corrupt, stupid, and incompetent. Obama won't so much win next November as have the election handed to him. I fear for our country.
"Recalling a famous saying of his father, the neoconservative pioneer Irving Kristol, that a neoconservative was “a liberal who has been mugged by reality,” the younger Mr. Kristol joked that now they might end up as neoliberals–defined as “neoconservatives who had been mugged by reality in Iraq.”
Or, as it is the case in MY case, a neolibertarian. A fiscal conservative, social libertarian hawk.
Not just military spending - pretty much all government spending. And it's not like he's exactly slashing the military budget - it's going to down to 2006 levels.
But again, this is why the country is going to end up like Greece - no one can bear to cut any funding for their own pet projects. By all means, lets throw more money at a defense that has proven to be staggeringly ineffective in Iraq and Afghanistan, and cannot produce a single military vehicle that isn't years late, not as effective as originally thought to be, and massively overpriced..
Anyway, he does want to end Social Security, but at the same time, it's not something you do overnight. He has to let it run its course for current recipients, but scrap it after that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think this would have been a more effective article if it went into greater interaction with the charts on this page:
External Link
Which areas are unrealistic or wrong? It shows Medicare and SS spending going up over the next four years, and tax revenue going down. Even so, it still balances the budget in three years.
A detailed plan deserves a more detailed response.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLess US involvement in foreign adventures, less expenditure on the military, at least as much spent on programs that many of us have relied upon rightly or wrongly) for support in our old age, no support for flaky left-wing sociology, reasonable support for moderate social conservatism. What's not to like? Well, there's the libertarian thing, but I can be forgiving sometimes. I'd be happier if his kid was named "Billy Bob" or even "Myron" instead of "Rand."
As long as he stays away from a new federal sales (consumption) tax, Ron Paul has my vote.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKristol: “Common Cause”
A year after the Iraq war and after Frum’s attempted purge, the New York Times went to William Kristol to ask him his thoughts on Iraq now that things weren’t moving as smoothly as he had hoped.
Kristol told the Times that John Kerry had the real answer to the problems there: we need to send more troops. Kristol explained that this agreement between the neocons and the Democrats should surprise no one:
I will take Bush over Kerry, but Kerry over Buchanan or any of the lesser Buchananites on the right. If you read the last few issues of The Weekly Standard, it has as much or more in common with the liberal hawks than with traditional conservatives.
Kristol continued, “If we have to make common cause with the more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine with me, too.”
Making “common cause” with the antiwar left was the first charge in Frum’s indictment that Buchanan and Novak had gone “far, far beyond” the bounds of permissible dissent.
Lest the White House not understand the implicit threat, Kristol added more; summed up in the Times‘ closing paragraph:
Recalling a famous saying of his father, the neoconservative pioneer Irving Kristol, that a neoconservative was “a liberal who has been mugged by reality,” the younger Mr. Kristol joked that now they might end up as neoliberals–defined as “neoconservatives who had been mugged by reality in Iraq.”
In short, Kristol was saying to the GOP, “if you don’t continue your Wilsonian march, we will find a party (maybe Wilson’s) that will.”
Again, no one should have been surprised. Kristol’s close ally, columnist Charles Krauthammer, never hid his admiration for Wilson, FDR and Truman, who he recently called “three giants of the twentieth century.” Neocon publisher Lord Conrad Black wrote a paean to FDR. Kristol has given LBJ the A-Okay.
The neocons–and they admit this–are hawks first, and Republicans or conservatives second.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is no surprise, as Ron Paul has been a major participant in the Beltway Debacle for decades. He first arrived in 1976, and has a wonderful ability to do exactly the opposite of what he says - much like Newt Gingrich, the other Beltway Celebrity. Ron Paul, much like Gingrich, has been selling a con game for a long, long time, while he enjoys the fruits of the Federal Public Sector game.
Ironically, some in the Media are trying to sell Santorum as a potential Carter surprise in Iowa. This is interesting, for we know Rick entered Congress just five years after finishing his education to become a lawyer. Santorum entered Washington in 1991 and was defeated in 2007. He too is an entity primarily made in the Beltway, lacking serious private sector accomplishment, having no genuine executive experience, essential economic credentials, etc.
We see polls telling us "personality" is such a big factor, which continues to enable professional politicians making a mess in Our Government. We all know this has led to repeated failure in Our Government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRon Paul? Who's he? I didn't see that name listed in the NR, "Of these candidates, whom do you support" survey question list.
Seriously, that alternative list is a journalistic disgrace. Editorial essays are one thing, but gaming survey questions which should be complete and objective is something else entirely. Entirely oily that is.
NR should just go All Soviet and post the same question again with Mitt Romney as the only candidate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks for pointing that out, SteveM. Since another candidate is my first choice, I had somehow missed it.
Wow.
In NRO's shoes, I would not have done that. I assume they do not want a third-party bid. Nor do I.
The Grand Old Party's chances of being confronted with one are far less if we are seen to play fair in our nomination process. But given the behavior during the last few weeks of conservative leaders whom I once greatly respected, I am convinced that the odds now favor the GOP Establishment once again snatching defeat from the jaws of near-certain victory.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRon Paul is a demented racist. The sane portion of the Republican party naturally regards him with abhorrence. For the Democrats, they probably can't believe their good fortune. Cordially, Bill
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhile the Weekly Standard has never struck me as much more than the neo-Jacobins' house journal, I used to regard the National Review as a little more respectable. No longer. May God continue to bless Dr Paul, and may He have mercy on you and your fellow travellers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat does it matter about this news? Ron Paul's cultists will follow him to the Kool-Aid regardless.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRon Paul wouldn't be a problem nor a target of constant bashing if the Republican leadership had promoted a candidate that didn't put people to sleep and bore them to tears. It isn't Ron Paul's fault that the Republican leadership is corrupt, stupid, and incompetent. Obama won't so much win next November as have the election handed to him. I fear for our country.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse> . . . no plan to reform Medicare and Social Security, other than cutting defense spending to make more room for them in the budget.
You mean Ron Paul is a democrat? Then again, isn't everyone?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Recalling a famous saying of his father, the neoconservative pioneer Irving Kristol, that a neoconservative was “a liberal who has been mugged by reality,” the younger Mr. Kristol joked that now they might end up as neoliberals–defined as “neoconservatives who had been mugged by reality in Iraq.”
Or, as it is the case in MY case, a neolibertarian. A fiscal conservative, social libertarian hawk.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's part of it. The other half of the plan is to let younger people opt out of the programs altogether.
I would certainly like the opportunity to opt out.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGary Johnson is a younger Ron Paul. If you liked Ron Paul you'll LOVE Gary Johnson.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse