Does anyone really think national security will be served if we don't have the money to finance the military--or anything else?
As Pat Buchanan noted recently:
We are thus in the position of having to borrow from Europe to defend Europe, of having to borrow from China and Japan to defend Chinese and Japanese access to Gulf oil, and of having to borrow from Arab emirs, sultans and monarchs to make Iraq safe for democracy.I've been called a single-issue voter, and freely admit the right to keep and bear arms is for obvious reasons the cornerstone, but it truly is all about freedom.
We borrow from the nations we defend so that we may continue to defend them. To question this is an unpardonable heresy called "isolationism."
With what we've got facing us, anybody who doesn't put everything they've got into backing the only candidate who won't continue steering the economy over the precipice, and the only candidate who won't attack gun ownership, needs to reexamine the fundamentals.
11 comments:
Is this enough of a wakeup call? WAKE UP! If you don't vote for Ron Paul you are part of the problem.
What happened to the war?
Ron Paul today:
If all the other members of congress had followed my voting record, the trust fund would be in good shape because I have never voted to spend one penny out of the social security trust fund
1999:
# Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
Other than that little flop, he says all the right things, but he won't touch the things that need the most change.
Such as social security/medicaid/medicare which take up over 50% of government spending. Or at least he doesnt say so.
First, Stan, "spending" and "strengthening" are two entirely different words, so I don't see a "flop." Second, without knowing the context and whether there were any riders on whatever he voted on, it's impossible to tell what "strengthening" means. Did it mean more spending? More unconstitutional "entitlements"? Why don't you explain? And include links. And also tell us why you fall for the Al Gore terminology "lock box" when no such separate fund exists, as Paul has repeatedly and seemingly singularly pointed out.
Second, Paul has given us a plan on how to bring Social Security under control--it's been out there for a while, real easy to find--but you somehow didn't mention that. Why?
"He won't touch" it? He's given us the freakin' game plan.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul215.html
You may be right about the bill on the lockbox, I don't have the context. That was sloppy on my part but it does appear to be an inconsistency at most.
I do think it would be both good and consistent for fiscal conservatives to "lock" the social security funds.
As for Paul's plan you linked to, he says cut spending, and possibly "apply even 10% of the bloated federal budget to a real trust fund, and begin saving your contributions to earn simple interest."
That's some grandiose thinking there, good, but that's got a more slim chance than Paul has at the presidency. Cutting benefits would be much easier and wouldn't create another fund Congress can take from.
It seems he's even against privatization, or at least partial privatization. Something easier to do than cutting benefits.
I know Paul would cut spending. I think all GOP candidates have promised that. Not that it matters now, but Thompson was the only one who specifically targeted cutting and reforming these very social programs that are bankrupting us. No one else wants to directly touch them. It would be a good way to get seniors against you, but it needs to be done soon.
It may sound like it lately (esp. here), but I'm not solely against Paul. He is better than the rest on domestic issues. But this is one area where all remaining candidates aren't up to par.
Ron Paul wrote the solution to this problem 25 years ago.
I think its grandiose to promise 53 TRILLION DOLLARS that aren't even in existence. The GDP of the USA last year was about 12 trillion. So if every dime spent in the US, every paycheck, was diverted, it would take over 4 years to collect. Add of course everyone would starve to death...
It's radical and insane to not address the issue, and Ron Paul is the only was who honestly does!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/social-security/
David,
I honestly believe that YOU believe that Ron Paul is a good leader.
This is a subject on which we must agree to disagree.
For everything I love about your blog site and all of the money I put down on Guns magazine to read your work every month or so I can not buy Ron Paul.
I have said for years that we are going to hit the wall sometime in the next 3 - 5 years.
2009: The first of the 'lockbox' IOUs come due. I'm guessing that with creative financing and number shuffling Congress will be able to stave off consequences for a few more years, but . . .
2012 - 2013: Projected SSI receipts dip below projected payments. FedGov can't stave of its creditors any more, dollar follows the path of the Weimar Deutschemark (sp?), hyperinflation, collapse of social services, generally speaking the stuff hits the fan.
On the plus side, just prior to that time credit will be very easy to get (just make sure you get fixed rate terms or limits on how high your adjustable rate can go) so max your credit, buy durable goods and real estate, then pay them off with what a loaf of bread costs.
And make sure you have lots of food and water put by.
HB--who CAN you buy, and why?
I'm just wondering how "lock box" or any related term could ever make sense in any context with social security.
The Social Security Act basically gave the fedgov the power to take money from producers and give it to anyone else for any arbitrary reason. If any of it was kept away in a "lock box", either there would be less recipients, or there would be less entitlements for existing recipients. It's not an investment, and it's not insurance. It's arguably a Ponzi scheme.
Post a Comment