Ron Paul returns $100k to Treasury

[HalfLotus]

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

His critics are reduced to disingenuous attacks on earmarks. Typical partisan sophistry taking advantage of Americans' political ignorance of the fact that earmarks do not increase spending by a single penny.

[DanS]

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

Seriously, it's pathetic how many worthless museums with sweetheart contracts that the congress has appropriated.

[Ben Kenobi]

Also I would strongly suggest cutting spending on our $1 trillion/yr. global military empire long before cutting domestic 'pork'.

One of these is a constitutional responsibility. One is not. This is why Ron Paul will never get my vote.

[MrFun]

Go back to Canada, BK.

[Elok]

Supporting Ron Paul is just half-assing it. Go all the way, support Lyndon LaRouche.

[Ming]

You are all welcome to your opinions about Ron Paul... because that's what they are, opinions. His track record is really all you can look at, and you are welcome to interpret it as you like. However, his track record is far better than most. Would I vote for him... well that depends on who he is running against, because as is usually the case, we get to vote between the lesser of two evils than picking between two people who actually would be better.

[Ben Kenobi]

Go back to Canada, BK.

It's true. At least the military is outlined in the constitution.

[Felch]

Congress is permitted by the Constitution to raise and maintain the military, but it isn't required to maintain a massive standing army. I think if you told the founders that we would one day have a standing army active around the world, they would have been alarmed.

[Berzerker]

One of these is a constitutional responsibility. One is not. This is why Ron Paul will never get my vote.

First, I wholeheartedly reject the notion that Paul's views on the military are incompatible with the Constitution. Second, read the Constitution. Where does it require us to outspend everyone else? They didn't even want a standing army. They left it up to the states with a small Federal force for installations etc and maintaining a navy. I have to believe were they alive today they'd quickly choke to death at the size of our military and budget. They didn't like standing armies...

[Berzerker]

oh good, Felch is on the scene

[Felch]

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.

[Felch]

Here's my source on the spending data, by the way

[Berzerker]

Ron Paul defends pork spending

If only he'd return this money to the Treasury.

I read his explanation and it sounded logical - I agree in principle that its better for people and the states to get money back from the Feds than to have the Feds spend it, but they wouldn't be appropriating more if they didn't have the requests for earmarks, would they? It would be better if the Feds didn't take as much from the people and the states to begin with.

Ron Paul is a dilhole.

That's not very Christian of you.

Oops. I slipped.

[DanS]

Here's my source on the spending data, by the way

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.

[Berzerker]

but that doesnt include hitech stuff, like super super secret programs that cost wads of money but are hidden away from prying eyes.