It’s official: US debt-to-GDP passes 100%. Gubbermint now owes more than the country makes in a year. Hey, remember when the national debt was only $10.6 trillion (before Hope-along Changedy took office?) Good times. But don’t worry, we have a fiat currency, which means our money will soon be as worthless as our politicians are.
This post was last modified on January 26, 2021
View Comments (29)
I can see Greece from my front porch.
And Obutthead and company keeps on spending..........
People better think long and hard about the next election. There's one candidate running who wants to cut a trillion dollars of waste his very first year. He also correctly predicted the economic collapse five years before it happened. That man, of course, is Ron Paul.
He's too smart to get elected.
And yes, I am a rabid, hard core supporter of Dr. Paul, and will probably commit seppuku if/when he isn't elected.
I like some of what Ron Paul has to say, but other things are just a little too over the top. His main problem is how he relates to the people, they see him as an annoying version of Ross Perot. If he wasn't so, well, Ron Paul like, he might have a shot!
Treasury Secretary? Yes.
President & Commander In Chief? No, & it's the 2nd title.
Thank you for exemplifying the "Ron Paul is anti-military" stance. He's non-interventionist. Don't mess with people who don't mess with us. Mind our own business.
Why does it seem that "true Conservatives" have to be pro-war? What's wrong with getting the hell out of the business of other countries? We're not an international police force.
We don't need Jimmy Carter 2.0. His weak ass in dealing with Iran is why we have a problem with them today. Been there, did that, not worth repeating. Again, Treasury Secretary, great, Commander In Chief, not so much.
In a nutshell, a nuclear Iran threatens our interests. If he cannot see that, then he can't think strategically.
Yeah, but Paul lost me with ONE sentence.
I can buy the non-interventionist strategy, where we don't intervene except where our national interests are threatened. (that still leaves a lot of room for interventions, and is actually a reasonable definition and justification for intervention.)
I will not vote for a person that blames Israel for terrorism. That's like the Left's blaming the rich for such crushing poverty that people out of necessity riot and steal television sets and video games. On what planet are luxury goods necessities? Not mine.
If he could have blamed terrorists for terrorism, then I'd take him seriously. It was a serious deal-killer. Maybe Israel has issues. Maybe there are no innocents in wars. However, terrorism is a foul and disgusting way of waging war against innocents in order to remedy perceived injustices. The question becomes "At what point do perceived injustices require such an action?" I know plenty of people who suffer perceived injustices that do *not* engage in terrorism. I know of only one society/culture/religion that turns to it routinely.
Maybe the insult of us being kaffir is another perceived injustice? Seems to be the case in Egypt these days. Too bad our Dept. of State doesn't think so, though.
As it is, the impression I get is that much like Romney, Paul says what he thinks people *want* to hear. Going by that, he is poorly advised at best.
I understand the problems you have with Paul. I don't like that either. But if you can name another candidate from either side of the aisle that actually respects the Constitution, I'd gladly vote for them.
Well, in the sorry-assed triangulation we all have to do in voting for president, where we either vote *against* the more dangerous candidate, or vote for the candidate that *sucks the least*, Paul is higher on my list than Romney, based on the "sucks less" litmus test, but only slightly lower than Romney in the "less dangerous" test.
However, reality being what it is, and having listened to him, as long as he works on building confidence that he will *defend our interests* as a nation, then he deserves a chance. He can't be the disaster that the moron-in-chief we have right now is, and he'll pull new people into politics that have a better idea of how our nation was founded.
Paul supporters may not as a group be the most politically astute people alive*, but they certainly are one of the more intelligent demographics out there.
That said, I believe in Santorum. However, he probably won't make it, possessing strict constitutional views being the liability that they are.
* -- if they were, they'd have had a better answer for the "Would you commit Americans to fight against the Holocaust?" question thrown at them.
Intelligent. Yes. Often naive? Yes also. Personally speaking, I cannot get past his foreign policy philosophy. The *sucks the least* candidate will get my primary vote. Haven't decided yet who. In the general, like most of us here, I'd vote for anyone who is not named Barack Obama....or whatever his real name is ;).
My lady, who swears she's a liberal, even though I show her daily that the Democrats don't represent her views, took the Candidate Quiz the other day. When I told her that every Republican on the list scored above Obama in her quiz, and showed her the list, she said she'd never heard of Santorum or Huntsman. Those guys aren't getting their message out.
He is Neville Chamberlain with a Texas twang. Whether Paul or the Paul supporters care to admit it or not, the US is currently the only global military power left in the world. With that reality comes the responsibility and mandate to project it's power to further its and its allies' national security interests. Iran acquiring a nuclear arsenal is a direct threat to that responsibility. Paul's hands off approach sounds terrific on paper unfortunately it is not realistic. I like his Austrian economics, antipathy to the Federal Reserve and his desire to do away with unconstitutional federal departments. Pretending that the world will be more stable without a strong US military and foreign policy presence is naive and wishful thinking.
We tried the isolationist routine before WWII and look where THAT got us. I don't want to be the world's police, but countries have to have somewhere to go for relief, since the UN doesn't exactly step up to the plate.
It's not even necessary to be the world's police. We just need to define what our interests are, and stand up for them. We don't exist in a vacuum, and never did.
A rational foreign policy that other nations can understand would go a long way towards a more secure and safe world, as in: "Do this, and things will explode,".
However, an out-of-control UN hell-bent on world domination through fraudulent climate science is probably the greatest threat to our interests to date -- and nobody in the government is talking about what they would do to rein it in.
Second, of course, are the belligerent nations waging war on us, whether that be economic like China's, or terroristic, like the islamonazis.
You know what? I'm almost inclined to push for Paul for President! Maybe after 4 years of him, the left will shut up about Bush! Then we can get a real conservative in there.
I should have been more clear, I was referring to his foreign policy only. The domestic policy I have no problem with, except when it comes to illegal immigration.
On that I must disagree. He is libertarian, I concede that and his domestic policy is not only needed but constitutionally based but so is an army and navy. Congressman Paul does not seem to understand that. He is closer to Obama foreign policy wise, IMO. The US must have a strong and committed military and it must project that power. We learned with Carter and now Obama that showing weakness does not cut it. Paul is weak.
Just a sec, while I put on my body armor. Okay, now I'm ready to be bopped by the Paul supporters.
Still better than Obama.
Yeah, but ham sandwiches are better than Obama.
That's like being the smartest kid in the dumbest class.
Well, Barry's been sold as "the smartest person in the room." Now we know that at least Paul isn't in the room. Probably a room full of mushrooms anyway.
Well, now that the debt ceiling has been raised another 1.2 Trillion, Moochelle can afford to go on another vacation! But I see Barry is asking for more money already!
Our spendthrift in chief!
Hooray, another Unprecedented Accomplishment by The First African-American President Of The United States!
Are you blaming this on Clinton? Come to think of it, I actually DO blame this on Clinton. He's the one that forced the lending institutions to lend to unqualified borrowers, which I believe was the beginning of our present problems. Obama just keeps it going real well.
Hate to say it, but our currency still has a long way to drop before it even gets even close to being as worthless as most of our politicians.
Another fight over the "debt ceiling" is coming as well. It's time to start slashing budgets, & get rid of those in Congress who won't do it.