Bourbon Pundit

Ron Paul on Meet the Press and other musings

I happened to catch this surfing channels and almost hacked up my coffee....just found it in print, so here you go.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/23/532376.aspx

On Meet the Press this morning, Paul called the American Civil War a mistake, criticized Ronald Reagan as a "failure," and refused to rule out a third party run.

Paul repeated his claim that Abraham Lincoln should not have started the Civil War to get rid of slavery. "Six-hundred-thousand Americans died in the senseless Civil War," he said. "No, he should not have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original tenet of the Republic," he told NBC's Tim Russert.

"Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world," Paul continued, responding to the question if America would still have slavery had there not been the Civil War. "The way I'm proposing that it should have been done is do it like the British Empire did -- you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans?... I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach."

This is a good microcasm of his world view. It assumes if the US disengages from any area, that area will no longer affect us. It's the geo-political equivalent of putting your head in the sand. Take the example above. Just buy the slaves and release them. Sure, sounds good, until you think of the whole picture. If he'd have actually cracked a book open, he'd have realized that there was a sizeable portion of the states that wouldn't be freeing anyone, and that while the Constitution supported states rights, the federal government (the Lincoln administration) decided that slavery was a stain on the nation and would be abolished. Also in the history books, we'll notice that the south seceeded from the union over it (you know, that's how they came up with their own little flag), sure we'd buy 'em and free 'em up north and the problem would be solved because that down-south area would be another country and since we're non-intervenionist, it wouldn't be our problem. Nice way to pat yourself on the back and turn a blind eye to the problem.

Slavery was phased out in every other country? I suppose you've never heard of Africa where it continues today. Was it worth 600,000 Americans? Well, it seems that was the price to resolve the issue. I guess the question is what is an American's life worth when advancing freedom? I'd say it's worth an indetermintely large amount. Should we spend it? Damn right we should.

I tried to like you. Much of what you say is correct, but that doesn't overcome the kooky bullshit that comes out of your head. Back to the green party with you; you'll fit in better with the potheads.

One thing that I find really uncooked is his desire to bring home our troops from abroad under the pretense that this would save hundreds of billions of dollars. The only way it would save these hundreds of billions of dollars is if you brought them home and then fired them. Total funding for the military in 2007 was $439 billion; however operations of those folks are only $152 billion. The only way to make his magic numbers are to start firing folks and cutting future development, you know, those things that will allow the US military to do more with less. Seems like he's got a but in his ass to cut off his nose to spite his face. Considering the one thing that really is the president's constitutional duty, to protect the United States, it seems very disconnected.

So, this all would require a change in foreign policy, and that's his desire too. The old walk softly and carry a big stick thing, only this time we're ditching the sticks and hoping walking works much more effectively...I guess it matters which way you're walking.

Dr. Paul, the US spends a boatload of money on defense, about 47% of the world's spending on the military. As a function of GDP, it's about 3.7%; not a lot higher than France. If you want to talk about spending, we peaked at 38% of GDP in 1944...something sticks in my head that was going on that year, but my feeble public school eduation fails me as to the reasoning for that huge expenditure. Seems to me, if you want to make a difference in spending there's a lot of places you can look that don't impact silly little things like national security.

I know you want to abolish the IRS; sounds good, I don't like it either. However, I would be very happy if you removed the little checkbox to send extra money to presidential candidates; I'm tired of knowing that we're wasting it on politicians such as yourself. While you're in the forms designer, drop a box on there where I can choose to send cash directly to funding our military...maybe a paypal address that'll let me contribute to buying a tank. If I've got to hold a bake sale for the military, it can only mean that government has misread the constitution, ignored the intent of the Revolution, and ignored the people.

If somehow you get elected, and God-forbid, the United States is attacked in any form or fashion, expect a revolt.

What I just don't get is that we are spending less of the people's money; sure, government isn't smaller, but it's a smaller dose of our earnings. The silly little thing about Republicans that they forget to tell people about is that they want lower taxes AND that lower taxes will generate more income to the government because the government gets paid when money moves, not when it's printed. I'm not all tied up about government spending right now, go right ahead, spend; it doesn't go to Washington to be saved. Lower my taxes more and then you guys can spend even more, I don't care. The United States is an economic engine that runs on the belief that we can always do more, always be more competitive, and there is no ceiling to achievement. Because of all this our GDP will continue to climb and while the budget as a percentage of GDP will continue to fall, abosolute dollars will also climb.

Huckabee, don't think you've gotten a pass lateley either; you're next.

Posted by nose at December 24, 2007 12:27 PM