Ron Paul

[Guest American Woman]

But .... but .... a Republican with brains! Seriously, I'm still in shock. Can it be only a matter of time before there's a conservative in Canada with brains?!

[bush_cheney2004]

1. 4.5% of GDP is not small potatoes compared to most other developed countries. That's money a person could use towards helping others if he wished.

As Ron Paul would urge, go back and resd the US Constitution. Nothing in there about "helping others", but plenty about the common defense.

[Machjo]

But .... but .... a Republican with brains! Seriously, I'm still in shock. Can it be only a matter of time before there's a conservative in Canada with brains?!

Scott Reid. Again, I don't agree with all of his ideas, but he's got some good ones none-the-less. This of course is if you're talking about members of the Conservative Party. Otherwise, André Arthur, an independent in Parliament, is another one to keep a close eye on. He's had some good ideas too, though as an independent he'll never be PM of course.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Machjo

[nicky10013]

This is another reason I've sometimes tended to vote more left that right. The left does seem more able to balance the books judging from recent history in Canada and the US, and I think the reason is that it acknowledges that if it intends to spend, it must raise taxes too. But it still ticks me off when even the NDP supports subsidizing big business like the car industry for crying out loud. The difference though is that at least the NDP would raise taxes to pay for it whereas the Conservatives still choose to subsidize but then refuse to raise taxes. On that front, at least the left (and yes I am generalizing here) is honest enough to admit that it needs to raise taxes.

That said, if a politician comes in promising not tax cuts, but rather spending cut, then I know he's a real fiscal conservative. honestly, I'm not sure Paul meets that standard. But at least he'd be serious about cutting spending so as to bring sustainable tax cuts in future closer to reality.

There has been a conservative who has ever cut program spending?

[Machjo]

As Ron Paul would urge, go back and resd the US Constitution. Nothing in there about "helping others", but plenty about the common defense.

You didn't get what I meant. If you reduce spending on the military and pre-emptive wars (also not in the Constitution), then you could reduce taxes, inflation or high interest rates slightly over time, so as to give ordinary citizens the more spending power to give to the poor should they so choose. That is what I meant.

[Moonlight Graham]

But .... but .... a Republican with brains! Seriously, I'm still in shock. Can it be only a matter of time before there's a conservative in Canada with brains?!

I think Harper has some brains. But he's more of a Tin-man than a Scarecrow.

[Machjo]

There has been a conservative who has ever cut program spending?

On occasion, at least moderately. But again, they tend to cut taxes faster than they can cut spending, and that is what essentially makes them fiscal liberals in my book. A truly fiscally conservative party would first cut spending, and then consider the possibility of cutting taxes in response, but be more cautious on that front. When it comes to spending cuts though, the government does need to be more aggressive.

[Machjo]

I think Harper has some brains. But he's more of a Tin-man than a Scarecrow.

OK, maybe 'brains' is the wrong word. Being all brains and no heart is no good either. Both need to work together. I think Ron Paul has the right balance.

[bush_cheney2004]

You didn't get what I meant. If you reduce spending on the military and pre-emptive wars (also not in the Constitution), then you could reduce taxes, inflation or high interest rates slightly over time, so as to give ordinary citizens the more spending power to give to the poor should they so choose. That is what I meant.

Or not....obviously you are predisposed to socialism and "helping the poor"....with other people's money.

[Machjo]

Or not....obviously you are predisposed to socialism and "helping the poor"....with other people's money.

How is reducing government spending so as to reduce either taxes, inflatin or interest rates so as to pt more money into people's pockets a bad thing. Of course they should be free to do what they want with their money. But I'm sure you'll agree that reduced government spending will in fact put more money into people's pockets.

OK, you don't like helping the poor as an example. Let's try another example then: It will raise your purchasing power so you can buy that Harley you always wanted. Is that better?

[Machjo]

Also, how is helping the poor with your own money of your own free will 'socialist'?

Seems pretty capitalistic to me.

Again, I'm all for government spending on social programmes. That said, if it's a choice between spending on social programmes and the military, then social programes are more of an investment at least.

Also, high government spending to send troops abroad on humanitarian missions in Haiti, Pakistan, etc. is not the same as social spending, except abroad?

OK, now when military spending is on humanitarian missions abroad, then yes I'll agree that it's an investment too, unlike pre-emptive wars like in Iraq. But still, would it not be preferable to lower government spending instead so as to strengthen the value of the currency so that people could give more to charity of their own hard-earned money?

This is where the right and left are often very similar without realizing it. The military industrial complex really is just nothing more than a right-wing version of big government. Ron Paul and a few others manage to transcend that.

[bush_cheney2004]

Also, how is helping the poor with your own money of your own free will 'socialist'?

You can do that now without any government action. Pleass write a check today! With you own money, of course.

Again, I'm all for government spending on social programmes. That said, if it's a choice between spending on social programmes and the military, then social programes are more of an investment at least.

More of an investment in what? Most government social program expenditures do not go to "poor people"...nor should they.

Also, high government spending to send troops abroad on humanitarian missions in Haiti, Pakistan, etc. is not the same as social spending, except abroad?

Nope...just another military mission.

OK, now when military spending is on humanitarian missions abroad, then yes I'll agree that it's an investment too, unlike pre-emptive wars like in Iraq. But still, would it not be preferable to lower government spending instead so as to strengthen the value of the currency so that people could give more to charity of their own hard-earned money?

Of course not....you are mixing your own personal agenda (Iraq & "poor people") into the fundamentals of government fiscal policy. Iraq was invaded and is occupied...get over it.

This is where the right and left are often very similar without realizing it. The military industrial complex really is just nothing more than a right-wing version of big government. Ron Paul and a few others manage to transcend that.

Oh sure....that's why "left wing" politicians also compete for fat contracts in their states and congressional districts. Ron Paul couldn't get even half the national vote as Ross Perot.

[Shady]

There has been a conservative who has ever cut program spending?

See the Republican Congress of 1994 - 2000. They actually shut down the government over too much spending.

[punked]

See the Republican Congress of 1994 - 2000. They actually shut down the government over too much spending.

Yah and took a huge in the polls went crawling back with their tails inbetween their legs and gave Bill everything he wanted. They didn't cut anything Shady, I think you better go back and check your History.

BTW the Republicans actually shut down the government because Clinton made Newt sit at the back of air force one instead of ride up front with him. Don't believe me I think you should go check it out for yourself. Shadys boys in action.

Edited September 13, 2010 by punked

[bush_cheney2004]

Yah and took a huge in the polls went crawling back with their tails inbetween their legs and gave Bill everything he wanted. They didn't cut anything Shady, I think you better go back and check your History.

Yes they did.....see 'Welfare Reform" (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, Pub.L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, enacted August 22, 1996)

[punked]

Yes they did.....see 'Welfare Reform" (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, Pub.L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, enacted August 22, 1996)

Maybe a lot of economists content the TANF program which it created didn't actually get people off welfare or save any money it was a strong economy and high growth that did that.

If we agree PRWORA got people off Welfare then yes, but I don't agree. Oh and it was Clinton in the 96 campaign who promised to "end welfare as we know it". Like I said they gave him everything he wanted.

Edited September 13, 2010 by punked

[bush_cheney2004]

Maybe a lot of economists content the TANF program which it created didn't actually get people off welfare or save any money it was a strong economy and high growth that did that.

If we agree PRWORA got people off Welfare then yes, but I don't agree.

I don't care about the nuts and bolts of PRWORA....Shady is right. Bill Clinton caved on a core constituency because of the Republicans and their popular support at the time (starting from Contract With America in 1994).

[punked]

I don't care about the nuts and bolts of PRWORA....Shady is right. Bill Clinton caved on a core constituency because of the Republicans and their popular support at the time (starting from Contract With America in 1994).

You do know that the 95 programs the Contract with America promised to elminate have grown some 25% from 1994 right? Nope, didn't think so. Like I said there was a lot of talk but at the end of the day the Republicans made so many mistakes that Bill always got what he wanted.

Edited September 13, 2010 by punked

[bush_cheney2004]

You do know that the 95 programs the Contract with America promised to elminate have grown some 25% from 1994 right? Nope, didn't think so.

1996 is not 2010.....Google cannot save you from Shady's correct historical observation. But keep on squirming!

[punked]

1996 is not 2010.....Google cannot save you from Shady's correct historical observation. But keep on squirming!

The problem is they didn't do anything BC2004. Yeah they got elected on cutting government spending but they didn't do it. They didn't cut anything. The shutting down of the government cost the government an extra Billion dollars all because the President sat Newt at the back of the plane. That is the way conservatives work. They say they will save you money then they cost you money. End of story they didn't kill the programs they said they would kill, they didn't end spending, they just ended up caving over and over.

[bush_cheney2004]

The problem is they didn't do anything BC2004.

Whatever you say....you were not here...as usual! Thank God for Google...eh?

[punked]

Whatever you say....you were not here...as usual! Thank God for Google...eh?

Yah I know it means that you and Shady can't make up lies which aren't true and call them true. Sucks to be you.

[Shady]

they got elected on cutting government spending but they didn't do it.

You're a pathetic liar. It's a fact that spending was cut. It's why Newsweek had a cover called "How The Gingrich Stole Christmas."

PIC

[bush_cheney2004]

Yah I know it means that you and Shady can't make up lies which aren't true and call them true. Sucks to be you.

"lies which aren't true" is redundant...just like many of your posts. Just stick to being a Dipper commie and you will be fine.

Edited September 13, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

Overall I like Ron Paul and his platform. He does have some wisdom in him. And he represents the old school Republican thinking. Not what you would call republicans of today.

The one thing is he is consistent in his words and actions. Can't say that about 90% of the politicians out there.