Ron Paul returns $100k to Treasury

[DanS]

AFAIK, that's stuffed into the intelligence black budget and is not huge. That leaves aside the question of whether intelligence and other items such as the Department of Energy nuke budget is really military spending. It's a number made to suit your ideology.

[Berzerker]

umm...not my ideology

[DanS]

Anybody's ideology.

[Imran Siddiqui]

30+ years of consistently voting for and championing balanced budgets and ~20 published books is a fight where I come from.

Actions speak louder than words is where I come from.

[Felch]

Don't use the numbers on that site. They're always wrong. Using the military spending numbers on Wikipedia divided by the GDP numbers provided by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, military spending is slightly less than 5% of GDP.

That's still pretty outrageous military spending at this time, in my opinion.

Edit: OK, I see what they're doing. They're including veteran's spending and foreign aid in the military spending. I would argue against that in this instance because most of the veterans obligations were accrued during the Cold War. I don't think that's very informative as it relates to what the military is doing now.

I've heard a wide range of numbers from different sources. I chose to use the numbers at this site because I was able to find data going back over two hundred years. Even 5% is still about 4 times what we were spending back then. My point was that having a gigantic military wasn't something the founding fathers wanted.

[Kontiki]

In 1800, U.S. military spending was about 1.27% of the GDP. In 2010 it's about 6.12%. Considering that America was a lot less secure in 1800, with a very tense situation in Europe and no allies, it's interesting that the founding fathers spent so little. If we were spending an equivalent amount today, it would be over 185 billion dollars, and still surpass the spending of any other nation on the planet.

I think we can guarantee our security at that price. We'd just have to kick our nasty habit of world domination.

You could easily guarantee your security at less than half that price.

[Jon Miller]

AFAIK, that's stuffed into the intelligence black budget and is not huge. That leaves aside the question of whether intelligence and other items such as the Department of Energy nuke budget is really military spending. It's a number made to suit your ideology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunk_Works

I have heard that they actually spent a lot more than what is listed.

JM

[HalfLotus]

The fact that earmarks don't increase spending is beside the point. They still result in money being misspent.

It's not beside the point when you have voters - Dino, Kid & probly half of America - being misled into thinking earmarks cause an increase in spending. They're misinformed, and I'm correcting them, that's the point.

The whole earmark debate started when Dino posted that Paul ought to return earmarked funds to the Treasury, which is wrong on multiple levels.

If people want to claim he's not ideologically consistent wrt earmarks, that's a valid argument, but a pretty puny one when stacked up against his political record.

There seems to be a presumption that if Congress does not earmark the money, that it will go to a 'better' place via some other Congresscritter, or by executive branch decision. I laugh at that. Here we are, effectively living in Bush's third term and people want more money funneled to the executive?

And rofl at Ben's suggestion that our current military activities are Constitutional. What's the last war that was Constitutionally initiated by Congressional declaration? WW2? I suppose you'd explain away the undeclared wars, the torture, the CIA secret prisons, the rendition, the 'Sneak and Peek' provisions of the Patriot Act (the entire Act, for that matter), the extra-judicial assassinations, and on and on and on. Just another day in the empire, right?

I'm curious about critics of Ron Paul. I don't agree with all of his views, but if not him, then who?

[Jon Miller]

I'm curious about critics of Ron Paul. I don't agree with all of his views, but if not him, then who?

This is why I voted for obama

JM

[Ecofarm]

The Founding Fathers wanted life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - and they wanted it for everyone. They would be proud.

[Kidlicious]

I think we can guarantee our security at that price. We'd just have to kick our nasty habit of world domination.

... and foreign oil.

[Kidlicious]

Paul fights the root of the problem, appropriations. You're whacking away at the branches, earmarks.

By voting against it? Don't be naive.

[HalfLotus]

No, by talking and writing about this stuff for 30 years. How else do you propose to 'fight' a contest of ideas?

[Kidlicious]

No, by talking and writing about this stuff for 30 years. How else do you propose to 'fight' a contest of ideas?

And don't forget making a lot of money off of those books.

[MrFun]

What's wrong with profiting from one's own work (this case, publishing a book)?