I did mention ending all business subsidies and bailouts. There was no intent nor indication I was omitting banks or anyone else in this but for the record clarification all transfer payments to businesses, no matter what we call them or to whom they are given, should be stopped.
Brian Baugus
Rush is completely wrong on this issue. There is nothing about Ron Paul preventing "conservatives" from rallying to one of the others. Of course Paul is the only candidate besides Romney polling ahead of Obama but if Rush is right when we get to GOP only primaries Paul will fall. But the real issue is the lack of quality in the GOP field. If it was Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, Haley Barbour and Sarah Palin this would be a totally different year and election. This is the weakest field in quite some time. Only two are currently in office the front runner has won exactly one significant election. The current occupation of the Final 6: two are professional political hacks, one governor, one congressman, one permanent candidate and one guy from the opposing administration. This is the best we got?
If you need to move that many troops for that big an operation then try the Constitutional process of declaring war not just sending troop willy nilly where ever the dope in the White House thinks, regardless of party. Once we declare war then make it mobilized and total and absolute this gradual escalation stuff is un-Constitutional and deadly. In 2008 Ron Paul raised more money from uniformed troops then all the other candidates in both parties combined, I am not sure what that means but it is not a small thing. I am not hacking for him really but when there are good points they should be considered and not dismissed by hyperbole and media hysteria but actually evaluated. I personally think a navy for projection around the world and troops at home on the ready with maybe one base in Asia and one in Europe and maybe one on the mid east would be about right but 308,000 troops in fifty plus countries, that is what is needed? Libya was a threat to us, The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganada is? Germany is under imminent invasion? Japan can not afford its own defense? Is there not some room for reassessing our approach or do we assume the government screws up everything except this one area? Lots of money and votes in this so obviously it must be getting done perfectly.
Did having hundreds of thousands of troops in over 50 countries stop the attack on the USS Cole, the Beiruit Marines, the World Trade Centers (both times) and so forth? Yes, I suppose the argument could be that things could have been worse but really? I am not sure how. In a day when we can move thousands of troops any where in the world in a few hours it is necessary to have 308,000 troops stationed overseas. When do we stop footing the bill for German and Japan defense needs? Iraq is falling apart and Afghanistan will too, it always has. Some talk of logic, well where is the evidence that our pseudo empire is working? After all the USSR did not fall due to our military it fell due to our economic warfare, Saudi oil, rock music and SDI did as much as anything, all thanks to Reagan but did the Soviets cower at our presence in Germany? Evidence suggests otherwise.
I am the author:). Government accounting is a mess and double and triple counting savings, such as they are, is frequent. It would not surprise me if some of these figures are questionable, however I have seen other estimates that put the total proportion of the federal budget dedicated to transfer payment at 50 percent and that was several years ago, I am quite confident it has increased since and 58 percent seems reasonable. However, I am willing to concede a few percent, the point of the article is not subverted over it.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Opus