I'm curious. If we are to oppose a nuclear Iran, albeit with better information than we had when we went into Iraq, how can we do this without increasing spending? It's to a large degree this defense spending over the last 8 years that has put us in our current financial position. This is what troubles me about the Republican candidates; like Bush in 2000 (in the initiatives Ted notes), their claims for change have to be backed up with money, so their limited government ambitions are countered by their political aims. Paul would basically be arguing for an isolationist standpoint, so he's the only one who could back up his claims with a political ideology.
And what would have happened if Obama had not bailed out GM and Wall Street? I mean both on the short term and the long term? Do you think really think the free market would have bailed them out?
Would appreciate your thoughts.
and another:
Ron Paul knows exactly what to do to fix our financial crisis and has no other political aims that would stop him from doing so. Our economy and the world economy are the #1 issue right now and no other candidate aside from Paul has shown me that they will make the hard decisions to correct the mistakes that has put us in the horrible position we are in now.
These are great questions - thanks for making this a real discussion, you all. Andy, I think opposing a nuclear Iran right now will save us a lot of defense dept spending down the road as we wouldn't then have to fight another 10-year lite war as we did in Iraq. Some of the candidates have mentioned ways to restrict Iran without spending war-levels of money. (gasoline embargoes, et c). We can't pretend not to be a super-power (as I think it is clear Ron Paul's isolationism would have us do) but still we can listen very carefully to Paul's proposals, as well as Rick Santorum's -- each knows a great deal and has a lot of good advice, even if it is opposite in content. They are good men. You are right that Paul's position is consistent and clear - but it is mistaken, I believe. I am with him on the Constitution and the economy, but not on foreign policy. If we could have stopped Hitler in 1937, should we have done it?
One more point about the Iraq and Afghan wars -- I don't agree that they were the cause of our financial woes today. The combination of those two wars since 2003 doesn't come close to the spending lost through the housing crisis. "The sum of all the deficits from 2003 through 2010 is $4.73 trillion. Subtract the entire Iraq War cost and you still have a sum of $4.02 trillion." (that is from this write up on the issue ---- http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/iraq_the_war_that_broke_us_not.html.) The federal budgets were in the hands of the Dems since FY 2008, and the increase in spending is head-spinning. Bush added $4T to the deficit in 8 years, and Obama added that much in 2. Each should have to answer to the American people for their gross mis-management of our tax dollars, I think. But as to the war - the entire Iraq War, from 2003 to fall of 2011 cost $709B. In the first few months of Obama's term, the Dem-controlled congress spent more than that on one stimulus package. This is just the truth. Here's the chart:
SO about the bailouts, I am surely not an expert in this field, so I don't know what to suggest -- I AM an expert about my own household economy (not that I handle it well, only that I know more about it than anyone else...), and I find that when I spend more than I make I get into trouble. I would assume that the principle extends to governments as well (and I hold Greece and Spain up as examples). I think there has been a very sincere attempt on the part of many well-meaning people to do something good for those in need, namely help more low-income people into houses and out of renting. However, it was a little like trying to help more people get where they are going faster by getting them to flap their arms and jump off high buildings. It may seem like a good goal, but it doesn't take reality into consideration. So - we had a lot of people hitting the economic pavement at terminal velocity. It didn't matter to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd - they were receiving kickbacks from Fannie and Freddie to write the laws to exempt the mortgage houses from careful scrutiny. (If the Occupy WS folks really wanted to address corruption, all they would have to do is read the books being written on the Fannie/Freddie horrors.) Countrywide made out well for a long time...but then Wall St bundled those bad debts and sold them to unsuspecting investors, spreading the disease around the world, and THIS is the reason we have such a terrible economy now, and that's why Bush and Obama felt the need to spend the the breathtakingly huge amounts in bailouts. The Dems passed spending bills without the need for a single Republican vote in 2009, including the Obama health care bill (that came in at $1T all by itself, and they now say was grossly under estimated). This is the reason why the Dems lost the House and nearly the Senate in 2010. I think that (if the country doesn't have short-term memory loss) the House and the Senate and the WH will be in Republican hands this time next year.
No comments:
Post a Comment