|
NeedToUseYou -> RE: Why I'm Supporting Ron Paul (11/7/2007 2:34:41 AM)
|
While I don't agree with everthing in the OP.
The one reason he has my vote is because he is the only one thinking about monetary policy in longterm manner. The rest of the Repubs all want to expand our military, further throwing us into debt and don't want to address our real economic issues at all, and then say even as they increase the military and talk of even invading Iran, that they will lower taxes, and fix the budget(fantasy land). That is unacceptable to me. The leading democrat, hillary, is only talking of raising taxes, is throwing some Iran rhetoric around herself, while at the same time offering nothing at all in regards to Iraq(trillions).
That's the primary reason. Monetary policy. We are broke, and no one else is speaking to this fact. I'm foremost a economic conservative. When you are broke and in war, most likely a long term war(unless Paul wins), you don't talk of spending more money, it's friggin ridiculous. Now if Hillary was saying, I'll reduce the military by gettting us out of numerous useless locations around the world we inhabit with military bases protecting us against no threat, and left the ones were there may be a legitimate threat(hell leave some in South Korea, why have a base in germany?), fine. And use those saving to supplement healthcare. I'd look at her. But she is just wanting to spend, and all the savings are theoritical paper savings, that aren't sure to materialize. That is the problem, constant expansion, and zero contraction in expenses. So, when given a choice between someone that will certainly increase taxes and government spending, and not reduce anything, versuse a candidate that will do something to reduce expenses, I choice reduce expenses(Ron Paul), as president can pull a lot of the military back that is in England, or Germany, or other locations that offer no protection to the us at all. Sure there are tangent benefits like refueling, but whatever that is not the reason the bases are there.
That is really his appeal, to a lot of people, no one else is offering a plan that is based on reducing expenses. All other plans are based on either taxing more(hillary), or based on the presumption of theoritcal savings(hillary), or just made up(rest of repubs).
If a candidate wanted to absorb a good portion of the Ron Paul vote (dem or repub), that is what they should be addressing, they won't get the vote any other way, they just won't vote, or will vote for a non frontrunner to spite them(dems and repubs).
|
|
|
|
