Cheering for Ron Paul

---

Highlighting the absolute disastrous economics, this dry-drunk frat rat of a Prez we have, has done to us all.

---



Cheering for Ron Paul
Posted on Nov 20, 2007
By Robert Scheer



What can you get for a trillion bucks? Or make that $1.6 trillion, if you take the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as tallied by the majority staff of Congress’ Joint Economic Committee (JEC). Or is it the $3.5-trillion figure cited by Ron Paul, whose concern about the true cost of this war for ordinary Americans shames the leading Democrats, who prattle on about needed domestic programs that will never find funding because of future war-related government debt?

Given that the overall defense budget is now double what it was when President Bush’s father presided over the end of the Cold War—even though we don’t have a militarily sophisticated enemy in sight—you have to wonder how this president has managed to exceed Cold War spending levels. What has he gotten for the trillions wasted? Nothing, when it comes to capturing Osama bin Laden, bringing democracy to Iraq or preventing oil prices from tripling and enriching the ayatollahs of Iran while messing up the American economy.

~SNIP~

On this matter of covering the uninsured, it should be pointed out to those who say we (alone among industrialized nations) can’t afford it that we could have covered all 47 million uninsured Americans over the past six years for what the Iraq war cost us. How come that choice—war in Iraq or full medical coverage for all Americans—was never presented to the American people by the Democrats and Republicans who voted for this war and continue to finance it?

Those now celebrating the supposed success of the surge might note that, as the JEC report points out, “aintaining post-surge troop levels in Iraq over the next ten years would result in costs of $4.5 trillion.” Until the leading Democratic candidate faces up to the irreparable harm that will be done to needed social programs over the next decades by the red-ink spending she supported, I will be cheering for the libertarian Republican. At least he won’t throw more money down some foreign rat hole.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20071120_ron_paul_does_the_math/


---

not so much a pro-Ron Paul article.

There's no need to agree with Ron Paul on social issues, but when it comes to exposing this senseless war, no one does it better. The Democrats that voted for it should share the blame, they've got blood on their hands.

programs that Democrats are so fond of, yet half of Democratic leaders made it almost impossible to fund these programs by voting for the IWR allowing trillions of dollars to disappear down a sink hole. Hillary in one of them.

what that means.

I'd cheer for a Democrat who would channel it into anti-povery programs, equal rights initiatives, education, family health services (including affordable birth control and abortion on demand), tearing down the literal and figurative walls between the US and Mexico, and making sure that our social safety net is accessible and working for all who need it. Ron Paul is not that candidate, nor is he a Democrat.

And yes, I read the article. I challenge you to peruse this:

http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm