Ruing the Day that We Didn't Elect Ron Paul

It may take a while, but there will come a day when the preponderance of Americans will have wished that they listened to Ron Paul's message. They will look for a man or woman like Ron Paul to be their president, but it will be too late. The United States is headed for a nightmare if we elect John McCain, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama.

It's not too late...

Most Americans don't think that Federal Debt is bad. They think it is just "funny money", and that because America's economic prowess has always been respected, that it will always be respected.


Because they're wrong. Ron Paul is explaining very clearly why we cannot afford to steep ourselves any further in debt, but only about 10% of Republicans are voting for him. I'm sadly sure that there are several others who think that he would make a great president, but they won't vote for him because (a) he can't win, or (b) he's against the war on terror, or (c) both.

In reality he can win, and he's not against the war on terror. And we need him desperately.

Because the Founding Fathers (The Founding Who?) thought that debt was such a bad thing, they required the United States to pay off all of its debts. The current debt of the United States would stagger George Washington or Thomas Jefferson.

The US' current debt is $7 trillion. That is 7 MILLION MILLION dollars. The additional, unfunded debt (not on the books) is over $50 trillion. We must reduce our debt somehow. If we don't, we won't be able to pay for health care for anybody.

Hell, we won't have health care for anybody.

There is only one person who would attempt to reduce the debt if elected. Ron Paul. Glenn Beck has illustrated the problem and what I think is the only solution.

$286.999 BILLION - Projected annual spending for Obama’s proposals
$218 BILLION - Projected annual spending for Clinton’s proposals
$7 BILLION - Projected annual spending for McCain’s proposals
$54 BILLION - Projected annual spending for Huckabee’s proposals
$150 BILLION (in savings) - Projected savings after Ron Paul eliminates most of the Government.

What this spending does
1. Push us deeper and further into debt at a time when we absolutely can’t afford it;
2. Reflect a particular paternalistic approach to governing—a true NANY STATE
3. Each proposal increases the absolute RAW power of government
It is a late hour. The pundits and the punters have declared John McCain the Republican nominee. I'm not willing to give up just yet. Neither should you be.

For your future... For the future of your posterity... Vote for Ron Paul for President. Because the federal debt is not funny money.


  1. When the shit hits the fan...I'm moving to Canada.

  2. Frank,

    I agree with you. Are you familiar with the Free Capitalist in Utah County and their support of Ron Paul. Did you know the government was going after them.

    I was curious if you had a chance to read the stories in the Salt Lake Tribune and specifically the one about Francine Giani and the Utah Department of Commerce published today on the FreeCapitalist blog?

    Hope I'm not being a pest, just thought you'd be interested given your support of Ron Paul.


    Derrick Kay
    Utah County, Utah

  3. Bradley,

    I'm not sure your position on FactCheck's fact checking, since you only link to it, but:

    (1) needs to do more fact checking than by just looking at the nasco website.

    (2) If it's not $1 trillion that we'll save, then it's pretty close to it. And that's much better than anyone else is trying to do. The numbers used were 2006 numbers, and we can safely assume that the 2007 numbers are higher.

    (3) I'm not sure why they make a big deal--and a logical fallacy--about Paul's claiming that Reagan supported him. That doesn't prevent Paul from criticizing Reagan where it's due.


    That's what all the liberals said, and they never left. Besides...Canada? You'd probably be coming back here the next health catastrophe you encounter.


    Thanks for your non-pesty input! ;-)

    I have heard about Free Capitalist. I don't know much about them, but I'll check out the blog.

  4. I have no personal experience with the Utah Department of Commerce or info beyond what is in the Trib article and the blog. But that blog entry is sure fast and loose with the personal attacks based on "fairly well known reputations."

    I wonder if there is a personal ax to grind? Why is "the government going after them?" "Equity Milling" and $1000-a-head "Financial Elixir" classes on using whole life insurance to "generate substantial wealth quickly" would possibly be legitimate targets of Dept. of Commerce investigations.

  5. UT,

    I agree with you. Rick's "Elixir" class has already reeled in 24 people at $1,000 a pop.

    I guess we are all "Free" to be "Capitalists", but holy cow!! In this case, Rick will be capitalizing on a lot of other people for very likely no or marginal benefit to them.

  6. And I posted a comment a few days late in response to your comment on the UtahOpinions blog.

  7. Ron Paul seems OK. He would do himself a great service to stay on key points and NOT be recorded on camera talking about conspiracy theories and a North American Union.

    The one point I would like to make though is that the position the man is running for is 'President' not 'King'. He can propose all he would like, but he cannot legislate it (put it into law). He can try to lead the Congress, but they have to follow, and the fact is they wouldn't.

    So to say that electing him would result in savings of $150 billion is not accurate and actually deceptive. As is saying that Obama will cost us $286 billion.

    There is no doubt that Obama could hurt the country with his economic policies and that Paul could help, but neither have 'carte blanche' to implement their plans or proposals. As the democratic minority demonstrated a few years back when faced with a Republican President AND Republican congress, it was very easy to bring things to a halt if they weren't on board.

    Electing a single person with 'radical ideas' (eliminating most of the Government is not necessarily bad, but it is very radical) is really not an effective way to implement needed change if no one else will follow.

    I would propose if you could make just ONE single change to the system, the one that would have the most impact would be to implement term limits on Congress. 2 Terms for Senators and 3 for the House. In essence it would constantly bring in 'change'. Got to love folks like Orin Hatch who when running against Moss promised a self imposed 'term limit', but then once he got to Washington has done ALL he can to stay there.


  8. cjsansom,

    You make a good point. I've traditionally been opposed to term limits, because the people should limit the terms of people like Hatch. I've tried for at least 18 years to limit his term, but not enough people have gone along with me. It seems, the more I look at it, that at least temporarily, until people get their political sanity back, that we should implement term limits. At least it would put a huge damper on the out-of-control federal bureaucracy.

  9. I believe the same term limits for our State legislators would be beneficial as well.

    "out-of-control federal bureaucracy" as you put it is a good description. It's about power and money, and once you're in a position of power and money you want to KEEP it! Nancy Pelosi has been in the House of Representatives for 21 years. Orin Hatch for 31 years! When Orin Hatch ran against Frank Moss in 1977 one of his campaign was that Moss' 3 terms (18 years) had resulted in him losing touch with his constituents.

    Just think about it. 2 terms for a Senator at 6 years each is 12 years! That is more then enough time to have represented your constituency and implement your ideas.

    If a candidate runs on a particular platform and hasn't been able to implement it in 12 years, then that speaks to the quality of that candidate or the quality of the platform he was running on.

    For everyone in congress to readily admit to the culture of power/money and the corrupting influences that they bring, but in the same breath insist that they are the exception to this and haven't been touched by it is laughable.



Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog