“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world”
“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none.”
Sen McCain on Sen. Paul: “The Senator from Kentucky is now working for Vladimir Putin.” (C-SPAN)
Rand Paul ‘John McCain is proof we need term limits’
RAND PAUL VS. JOHN MCCAIN: RAND REACTS TO MCCAIN’S RUSSIAN AGENT CLAIM!!
Rand Paul: McCain ‘past his prime,’ maybe ‘unhinged’
Pence: Time For Allies To Pay Fair Share For NATO
Other NATO members need to pay their fair share?
Trump complains at NATO countries for not paying defense share
Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned
Steve Bannon Lays Out His AMAZING Political Philosophy
Published on Nov 18, 2016
Speech by Stephen K. Bannon (Steve Bannon), Donald Trump’s senior strategic advisor and architect of his winning 2016 election. In this speech delivered to the Liberty Restoration Foundation, Bannon layed out the poliitical philosophy both he and Trump embrace, and which appealed to the American people in the election. It is conservative, perhaps explaining why the political liberal left has resorted to evidently incorrect allegations of antisemitism or racism to try to derail his appointment. Bannon was a Hollywood producer who invested in the Seinfeld comedy TV series, and later became the chair of the Brietbart News Service, expanding it into one of the leading news sources nationally, as an alternative to liberal media outlets that previously dominated US media. He joined the Trump campaign in June 2016, leading him to victory and the White House. Do you think that Bannon is racist, as the democrats have alleged?
Deficits, Debts and Unfunded Liabilities: The Consequences of Excessive Government Spending
Uploaded on May 10, 2010
Huge budget deficits and record levels of national debt are getting a lot of attention, but this video explains that unfunded liabilities for entitlement programs are Americas real red-ink challenge. More important, this CF&P mini-documentary reveals that deficits and debt are symptoms of the real problem of an excessive burden of government spending. http://www.freedomandprosperity.org
III – Unfunded Liabilities
Rhett Talks – Is the United States Bankrupt?
Laurence Kotlikoff at MTSU November 5, 2015
‘US hides real debt, in worse shape than Greece’
Unfunded Liabilities: James Cox of Silver Bullion interviews Professor Kotlikoff
The Actual Fiscal Gap Is Approximately $210 Trillion Dollars With All The Unfunded Liabilities, The Average Person, Every Man, Woman, And Child Owes……$666,666.667
8 years ago, when Obama took office, the Debt Clock was at 9 TRILLION Dollars.
Today, the US Debt Clock at almost 20 TRILLION Dollars.
This is an 87% increase.
The actual Fiscal Gap is approximately $210 TRILLION Dollars.
with all the unfunded liabilities.
With the population of the US is over 315 MILLION People, this means that the average person, every man, woman, and child owes……$666,666.667
Where does this lead?
Look at Brazil, Argentina, Cyprus, Greece, Italy,……
Who ends up with the bill?
Michelle Lee, a fact checker with the Washington Post, just posted a long and, to my mind, highly political column. Her column, read carefully, undermines Presidential candidate Ben Carson’s absolutely correct claim, made in announcing his candidacy, that the true measure of U.S. fiscal debt is not the $13 trillion our government reports as its debt. Instead, our true debt is over $200 trillion. Obviously, most of this true debt has been kept off the books by our politicians.
In this column, I’m going to defend Dr. Carson’s statement. But I want to point out that I don’t know Dr. Carson. I have never spoken with him. And I don’t yet know enough about Dr. Carson’s positions to have a view about his overall suitability for President. I am, however, impressed that out of the gate he is talking about the right measure of our nation’s fiscal condition.
I spoke at length to Michelle Lee prior to her writing her column. She told me she was a fact checker. But when fact checking turns into disguised political commentary, there’s a problem. Fact checkers are supposed to check the facts with experts. When it comes to economics, the experts are PhD economists, not political organizations or people, without real economics training, parading as economists, both of which she quotes in undermining Dr. Carson’s credibility.
Now let me turn to the substance. In referring to $211 trillion in unfunded mandates, Dr. Carson was referencing my calculation of the U.S. fiscal gap. As I explained in a NY Times op ed, the U.S. fiscal gap is $210 trillion. So Dr. Carson was off by $1 trillion – by less than one half of one percent.
The fiscal gap is the present value of all projected future expenditures less the present value of all projected future taxes. The fiscal gap is calculated over the infinite horizon. But since future expenditures and taxes far off in the future are being discounted, their contribution to the fiscal gap is smaller the farther out one goes. The $210 trillion figure is based on the Congressional Budget Office’s July 2014 Alternative Fiscal Scenario projections, which I extended beyond their 75-year horizon.
Dr. Carson referenced $211 trillion as the size of “unfunded mandates.” Michelle Lee correctly points out that Dr. Carson was referencing the U.S. fiscal gap, not the present value of mandatory spending. What she knew (because I told her), but failed to say, is that the present value of mandatory spending is far larger than $210 trillion because the fiscal gap is a net, not a gross number.
Michelle Lee is not a PhD economist. Nor is Bruce Barlett, whose truly absurd statement about the debt being an asset she quotes. Yes, it’s an asset, but it’s an asset that young and future generations must pay off. Social Security benefits are also an asset to their recipients, but again, they must be paid off by people who aren’t getting the benefits.
Michelle Lee apparently takes Bruce Bartell’s views more seriously than the views of 17 Nobel Laureates in economics and over 1200 PhD economists from MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, Berkeley, Yale, Columbia, Penn, and lesser known universities and colleges around the country. Each of these economists has endorsed The Inform Act, a bi-partisan bill that requires the CBO, GAO, and OMB to do infinite horizon fiscal gap accounting on a routine and ongoing basis.
Read Full Post
What You’ll Find
Comprehensive and meticulously documented facts about the national debt. Learn about various measures of the national debt, contributing factors, consequences, and more. For example:
* The U.S. Constitution vests Congress with the powers to tax, spend, and pay the debts of the federal government. Legislation to carry out these functions must either be:
- passed by majorities in both houses of Congress and approved by the President; or
- passed by majorities in both houses of Congress, vetoed by the President, and then passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress; or
- passed by majorities in both houses of Congress and left unaddressed by the President for ten days.
* Other factors impacting the national debt include but are not limited to legislation passed by previous congresses and presidents, economic cycles, terrorist attacks, natural disasters, demographics, and the actions of U.S. citizens and foreign governments.
* In 2014, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected the debt that the U.S. government would accumulate under current federal policies. The projection used the following assumptions:
- Unemployment will incrementally decline from 6.8% in 2014 to 5.8% in 2018 and 5.3% in 2027, where it will remain thereafter. (For reference, the average of the previous 40 years is 6.5%.)
- GDP growth will incrementally decline from an average rate of 3.4% above the rate of inflation in 2015 to 1.9% in 2021 and remain constant thereafter. (The average of the previous 40 years is 2.9%.)
- Federal revenues (i.e., taxes) will incrementally increase from 17.4% of GDP in 2014 to 18.0% in 2024 and remain constant thereafter. (The average of the previous 40 years is 17.4%.)
- Federal spending will incrementally increase from 20.4% of GDP in 2014 to 23.6% in 2025 and 31.8% in 2040. (The average of the previous 40 years is 20.5%.)
- Payments for Medicare services will undergo scheduled reductions that would likely cause “severe problems with beneficiary access to care.”
* Combining these projections with historical data yields the following results:
† To measure the entirety of the national debt, it would be preferable to show “gross” debt instead of “publicly held” debt, but this data is not presented in this report. Nonetheless, it would make little difference because the excluded debt primarily resides in federal government trust funds that dwindle and become insolvent during the projection period. Facts regarding why and how the federal government keeps its books in this manner are covered in the section of this research entitled “Government Accounting.”
* Per CBO, postponing action to stabilize the debt will:
- punish younger generations of Americans, because most of the burden would fall on them.
- reward older generations of Americans, because “they would partly or entirely avoid the policy changes needed to stabilize the debt.”
- “substantially increase the size of the policy adjustments needed to put the budget on a sustainable course.”
* The following Ph.D. economists and political scientists have claimed that the level of national debt during World War II is a good reason to not be overly concerned about the modern national debt:
- Paul Davidson, editor of the Journal of Post Keynesian Economics and author of The Keynes Solution: The Path to Global Economic Prosperity:
Rather than bankrupting the nation, this large growth in the national debt [during World War II] promoted a prosperous economy. By 1946, the average American household was living much better economically than in the prewar days. Moreover, the children of that Depression–World War II generation were not burdened by having to pay off what then was considered a huge national debt. Instead, for the next quarter century, the economy continued on a path of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity….
- Douglas J. Amy, professor of politics at Mount Holyoke College:
Conservatives are also wrong when they argue that deficit spending and a large national debt will inevitably undermine economic growth. To see why, we need to simply look back at times when we have run up large deficits and increased the national debt. The best example is World War II when the national debt soared to 120% of GDP—nearly twice the size of today’s debt. This spending not only got us out of the Great Depression but set the stage for a prolonged period of sustained economic growth in the 50s and 60s.
- Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize-winning economist and Princeton University professor:
Right now, federal debt is about 50% of GDP. So even if we do run these deficits, federal debt as a share of GDP will be substantially less than it was at the end of World War II.
Again, the debt outlook is bad. But we’re not looking at something inconceivable, impossible to deal with; we’re looking at debt levels that a number of advanced countries, the U.S. included, have had in the past, and dealt with.
* In the 40 years that followed the end of World War II (1946–1985):
- federal spending as a percent of GDP averaged 42% lower than the last year of the war.
- publicly held debt as a percent of GDP decreased by 72 percentage points.
* In 2010, around the time when the statements above were written, the Congressional Budget Office projected that under current policy and a sustained economic recovery over the next 40 years:
- federal spending as a percent of GDP will average over 78% higher than in the four decades that followed World War II.
- publicly held debt as a percent of GDP will rise by 277 percentage points.
* As alternatives to the CBO’s current policy projections detailed above, the CBO also ran projections for scenarios such as these:
1) Current law:
- Federal revenues will incrementally increase from 17.6% of GDP in 2014 to 18.0% in 2020, 19.9% in 2044, and 23.5% in 2084. At this point, federal revenues (i.e., taxes) will be 35% higher than the average of the previous 40 years.
- Federal spending on all government functions will incrementally increase from 20.4% of GDP in 2014 to 21.5% in 2020, and 26.0% in 2040. At this point, spending will be 27% higher than the average of the previous 40 years.
- Payments for Medicare services will undergo reductions that will likely cause “severe problems with beneficiary access to care.”
2) Republican Congressman Paul Ryan’s 2014 budget resolution, called the “The Path to Prosperity”:
- Starting in 2024, Medicare beneficiaries will have a choice to enroll in private plans paid for by Medicare or remain in the traditional Medicare program. Also starting in 2024, the eligibility age for Medicare benefits will incrementally rise to correspond with Social Security’s retirement age. Compared to the projections under the current policy scenario, Medicare spending will be 0.5% lower in 2016, 2% lower in 2020, and 4% lower in 2024.
- Federal Medicaid spending will be converted to an “allotment that each state could tailor to meet its needs, indexed for inflation and population growth.” The expansion of Medicaid manadated by the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) will be repealed. Compared to the projections under the current policy scenario, Medicaid spending will be 9% lower in 2016, 19% lower in 2020, and 24% lower in 2024.
- All federal spending related to Obamacare’s exchange subsidies will be repealed.
- Spending on all government functions except for interest payments on the national debt will incrementally decline from 18.9% of GDP in 2015 to 16% in 2025 before increasing to 16.4% in 2035. (The average of the previous 40 years is 18.3%).
- Revenues will increase from 18.2% of GDP in 2015 to 18.4% in 2025, 19% in 2032 and stay constant thereafter. (The average of the previous 40 years is 17.4%.)
* Combining historical data on the national debt with CBO’s projections for current policy, current law, and the Ryan plan yields the following results:
* A poll conducted by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal in February 2011 found that:
- 80% of Americans are concerned “a great deal” or “quite a bit” about federal budget deficits and the national debt.
- if the deficit cannot be eliminated by cutting wasteful spending, 35% of Americans prefer to cut important programs while 33% prefer to raise taxes.
- 22% think cuts in Social Security spending will be needed to “significantly reduce the federal budget deficit,” 49% do not, and 29% have no opinion or are not sure.
- 18% think cuts in Medicare spending will be needed to “significantly reduce the federal budget deficit,” 54% do not, and 28% have no opinion or are not sure.
* Other than interest on the national debt, most of the long-term growth in federal spending (as a percent of GDP) under the CBO’s current policy and current law scenarios stems from Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) subsidies.
* A poll conducted in November 2010 by the Associated Press and CNBC found that:
- 85% of Americans are worried that the national debt “will harm future generations.”
- 56% think “the shortfalls will spark a major economic crisis in the coming decade.”
- when asked to choose between two options to balance the budget, 59% prefer to cut unspecified government services, while 30% prefer to raise unspecified taxes.
* A poll conducted in July 2005 by the Associated Press and Ipsos found that:
- 70% of Americans were worried about the size of the federal deficit.
- 35% were willing to cut government spending.
- 18% were willing to raise taxes.
- 1% were willing to cut government spending and raise taxes.
* During the first session of the 113th Congress (January–December 2013), U.S. Representatives and Senators introduced 168 bills that would have reduced spending and 828 bills that would have raised spending.
* The table below quantifies the costs and savings of these bills by political party. This data is provided by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation:
||Costs/Savings of Bills Sponsored or Cosponsored
in 2013 by Typical Congressman (in Billions)
* Click here to look up any member of Congress and see the annual costs or savings from the legislation he or she has sponsored or cosponsored.
* The table below quantifies the net agendas of the political parties in previous Congresses:
||Costs/Savings of Bills Sponsored or Cosponsored in the First
Sessions of Congress by Typical Congressman (in Billions)
|NOTE: Data not adjusted for inflation.
* In February 2001, Republican President George W. Bush stated:
Many of you have talked about the need to pay down our national debt. I listened, and I agree. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now, and I hope you will join me to pay down $2 trillion in debt during the next 10 years. At the end of those 10 years, we will have paid down all the debt that is available to retire. That is more debt, repaid more quickly than has ever been repaid by any nation at any time in history.
* From the time that Congress enacted Bush’s first major economic proposal (June 7, 2001) until the time that he left office (January 20, 2009), the national debt rose from 53% of GDP to 74%, or an average of 2.7 percentage points per year.
* During eight years in office, President Bush vetoed 12 bills, four of which were overridden by Congress and thus enacted without his approval. These bills were projected by the Congressional Budget Office to increase the deficit by $26 billion during 2008–2022.
* In February 2009, Democratic President Barack Obama stated:
I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay—and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.
* From the time that Congress enacted Obama’s first major economic proposal (February 17, 2009) until September 30, 2016, the national debt rose from 74% of GDP to 105%, or an average of 4.0 percentage points per year.
* As of November 4, 2016, President Obama has vetoed twelve bills, one of which has been overridden by Congress and thus enacted without his approval. This bill is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to “have no significant effect on the federal budget.”
* In April 2011, journalists reported on a $38 billion federal budget cut agreement with the following headlines and phraseology:
- “New Cuts Detailed in Agreement for $38 Billion in Reductions”; “deep budget cuts in programs for the poor, law enforcement, the environment and civic projects” – Los Angeles Times
- “Congress Sends Budget Cut Bill to Obama”; “cutting a record $38 billion from domestic spending” – Associated Press
- “Budget Deal to Cut $38 Billion Averts Shutdown”; “Republicans were able to force significant spending concessions from Democrats….” – New York Times
* None of these articles reported that this figure of $38 billion in cuts was primarily relative to a portion of the budget called “discretionary non-emergency appropriations.” Relative to the entire federal budget, this cut left a projected spending increase of $135 billion from 2010 to 2011. This equates to an inflation-adjusted increase of $49 billion or 0.1 percentage points of GDP:
* None of the articles quoted above contains a budget-wide frame of reference for the cuts. A spending reduction of $38 billion equates to 1.0% of the estimated 2011 budget or 2.7% of the projected deficit:
* In February 2010, Fareed Zakaria of CNN stated:
Now, please understand that the Bush tax cuts are the single largest part of the black hole that is the federal budget deficit.
* In 2010, the Bush tax cuts lowered federal revenues by about $283 billion. This was equivalent to 8% of the federal budget or 22% of the deficit.
* Per the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), “Most parameters of the tax code are not indexed for real income growth, and some are not indexed for inflation.” Thus, if tax cuts are not periodically implemented, average federal tax rates “increase in the long run.”
* In 2000, the year before the first Bush tax cuts were passed, the federal government collected revenues equal to 20.4% of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), the highest level in the history of the United States. Over the previous 30 years, federal revenues averaged 18.3% of GDP.
* In 2000, the stock market “dot.com” bubble burst, the NASDAQ lost 39% of its value, and profits for nonfinancial corporations fell by 18%. In the first quarter of 2001, the nation’s GDP contracted and a recession began.
* In June 2001 and May 2003, Congress passed and President Bush signed laws that implemented various tax cuts.
* After the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented, federal revenues were 17.8% of GDP in 2005, 18.5% in 2006, and 18.6% in 2007. Average federal revenues for the 30 years preceding the Bush tax cuts were 18.4%.
* The Great Recession began in December 2007, and federal revenues declined to 17.7% of GDP in 2008.
* In February 2009, Congress passed and President Obama signed a law that implemented various tax cuts.
* Federal revenues declined to 15.7% of GDP in 2009 and 16.4% in 2010.
* Federal spending rose from 21.0% of GDP in 2007 to 26.5% in 2010. Average federal spending for the 30 years preceding the Great Recession was 21.8%.
* In April 2011, Ezra Klein of the Washington Post posted a graph of spending and revenue projections based upon CBO’s “current law” scenario and wrote that it:
shows what happens if we do … nothing. The answer, as you can see, is that the budget comes roughly into balance.
* Klein’s graph and commentary omitted the interest and outcome of the national debt under this plan. In the “do nothing” scenario, outlays were projected to exceed revenues every year through 2084, and the publicly held debt was projected to increase from 62% of GDP in 2010, to 74% in 2030, 90% in 2050, and 113% in 2084.
* In the same commentary, Klein wrote that the “current law” scenario is “a pretty good plan” that contains:
a balanced mix of revenues, through returning tax rates to Clinton-era levels and implementing the taxes in the Affordable Care Act, and program cuts … in Medicare….
* Under this scenario:
- Certain elements of the tax code are not indexed for inflation or wage growth. Consequently, taxpayers are shifted over time into higher tax brackets.
- According to the Congressional Budget Office, by 2020 revenues “reach higher levels relative to the size of the economy than ever recorded in the nation’s history.”
- Revenues as a portion of GDP continue climbing through 2084, rising 69% higher than the average of the past 40 years and 47% higher than ever recorded in the history of the United States.
- As a portion of GDP, federal spending without interest on the national debt rises by 2084 to 68% higher than the average of the past 40 years.
* Without mentioning the role of Congress in taxes, spending, or the national debt, PolitiFact (in the same article cited above) wrote that the national debt increased by $5.73 trillion “under” George W. Bush whereas there were budget surpluses “at the end of the Clinton administration.”
* Below are the fluctuations in national debt organized by the tenures of recent presidents and congressional majorities:
|Average Annual Change in National Debt
(Percentage Points of GDP)
|Bill Clinton with Democratic House and Senate
||1/20/93 – 1/4/95
|Bill Clinton with Republican House and Senate
||1/4/95 – 1/19/01
|George W. Bush with Republican House and Senate
||1/19/01 – 6/6/01, 11/12/02 – 1/4/07
|George W. Bush with Republican House and Democratic Senate
||6/6/01 – 11/12/02
|George W. Bush with Democratic House and Senate
||1/4/07 – 1/20/09
|Barack Obama with Democratic House and Senate
||1/20/09 – 1/4/11
|Barack Obama with Republican House and Democratic Senate
||1/5/11 – 1/6/15
* Other factors impacting the national debt include but are not limited to: legislation passed by previous congresses and presidents, economic cycles, terrorist attacks, natural disasters, demographics, and the actions of U.S. citizens and foreign governments.
| Make a Comment ( None so far )
Jim Rogers: “Only Ron Paul Understands What’s Going On.”
The Paul-Romney Alliance Infowars Nightly News
Ron Paul on The GOP Ticket? (2/15/2012)
Ron Paul Strategist: Ron Paul Has More Delegates Than Mitt Romney.. (2/15/2012)
Rick Santorum Slammed by Mitt Romney, Ron Paul in Final GOP Debate on CNN
Ron Paul (LIKE A BOSS): BODY SLAMS MITT ROMNEY
Cato’s Christopher A. Preble on Military Spending in the 112th Congress (1/19/11)
Is there a strategic alliance between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney? Paul responds.
Ron Paul Ad – Consistent
Would Mitt Romney Change His Views to Become Ron Paul’s VP?
Paul Calls Santorum ‘Fake’: Paul-Romney Alliance?
More BETRAYAL of the People – *NEW Ron Paul Ad
Ron Paul Ad – Rick Santorum a Conservative?
Ronald Reagan was a libertarian conservative that united the Republican Party in 1980 by selecting a moderate progressive George H.W. Bush as his running mate.
Craig Shirley’s New Book “Rendezvous with Destiny” – highlights from the 1980 campaign Pt1 of 2
Craig Shirley’s New Book “Rendezvous with Destiny” – highlights from the 1980 campaign Pt2 of 2
The results were two landslide victories for the Republican Party in 1980 and 1984 and the election of Bush in 1988.
Rumors are flying there is an alliance between Paul and Romney fueled by talk show host Mark Levin, a confirmed Paul hater.
Mark Levin – Ron Paul Is Measuring What Conservatism Is When He Is Not A Conservative
Rather lame Mark.
Levin as usual got it half right.
Levin is trying the great neo-con–libertarianism isn’t conservative–on his audience.
SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’
SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’
SA@TAC – Daniel McCarthy on Neoconservatism
Neoconservatives are right-wing progressive big government interventionists, both abroad and at home.
Betrayal of the Constitution An Exposé of the Neoconservative Agenda
Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America
Ron Paul advocates a non-interventionist foreign policy and therefore opposes the neoconservatives that advocate an interventionist foreign policy.
Congressman Ron Paul, MD – We’ve Been NeoConned
The Neocon Agenda
Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!
SA@TAC – Mark Levin’s Constitution
“…Nationally syndicated radio talk show host and bestselling author Mark Levin’s argument that the Constitution does not require the President to consult Congress concerning foreign interventions resembles the Left’s argument concerning the constitutionality of Democrats’ domestic interventions. …”
Levin was one of several so-called “conservative” talk show hosts that tried to smear Paul as a racist last December using a hit piece published in progressive The New Republic on the so-called racist Ron Paul newsletters several years ago.
The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul
Why would Reagan and Bush join forces in 1980?
Simple. To defeat the Democratic Party lead by progressive Jimmy Carter
Why would Paul and Romney join forces in 2012?
Simple. To defeat the Democratic Party lead by progressive Barack Obama.
According to Levin the alleged Paul and Romney alliance is to defeat the “conservative” candidates–Santorum and Gingrich.
Well, excuse me Mark, but libertarian conservatives, such as Ron Paul, supported conservative candidates including Goldwater and Reagan.
However, libertarian conservatives will never vote for a Presidential candidate that is a big government progressive neoconservative such as Santorum, Gingrich and Romney.
SA@TAC – Constant Conservative Ron Paul
Ron Paul: Counterfeit Conservatives
Yes, Levin, I know who Murray Rothbard is and I have read several of his books.
Ludwig von Mises thought very highly of Rothbard’ s work.
Rothbard in turn thought very highly of Paul.
Rothbard on Ron Paul
If von Mises and Rothbard were alive today, I am sure both would endorse Ron Paul for President and oppose the big government interventionists–Santorum, Gingrich and Romney.
I can think of two presidents that would also endorse Ron Paul.
SA@TAC – Constitutional Conservatives?
I will support and vote for Ron Paul for president.
I will never vote for a progressive neoconservative for President including Santorum, Gingrich and Romney.
Ron Paul: Santorum Is a Fake
However, I would vote for a Paul/Romney ticket, if that is what it takes to get Ron Paul elected President.
There is no perfect candidate.
There is no perfect ticket.
Politics does make strange bedfellows.
Remember Kennedy/Johnson in 1960 and Reagan/Bush in 1980, both tickets won.
Ron Paul – “The one who can beat Obama”
LBJ and Unity: Kennedy vs. Johnson
A Ron Paul/Andrew Napolitano ticket is the first choice of many Paul supporters.
Ron Paul Leaks His Choice for Vice President
Judge Andrew Napolitano Fired for Ron Paul VP?!?
Making Sense of the Conservative Movement
What’s the Modern Definition of a Conservative?
Movie Magic Crippled Conservatives
The Bulwarks of the Conservative Movement
Ronald Reagan Tapped Into Unspoken Conservatives
The Rockefeller family had bankrolled liberal protestantism in America since the turn of the 20th century. In the 70s, Jimmy Carter was the Rockefeller’s man. But with the recession of 1980, and his liberal policies of other issues, Carter lost his foot-hold of popularity among conservatives. At a unique turning point for Carter’s re-election race, Ronald Reagan appeared at a conservatives convention when other candidates did not. At the convention, Reagan took the lead, and conservatives supported Reagan all the way through two terms, to the astonishment of Washington D.C.
Are you a libertarian?
Hello. I am a Libertarian
Walter Williams on Government Intervention and Individual Freedom
Background Articles and Videos
Insider Says Talk of Paul-Romney Alliance is “Establishment Trick”
Lew Rockwell: Rhetoric is a political ruse to make Ron Paul appear as a sell out
Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, February 24, 2012
“…Former Ron Paul staffer Lew Rockwell says that talk of an alliance between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul is an “establishment trick” to smear Paul by making him appear as a sell out.
Rockwell, who served as Ron Paul’s congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982 and remains close to Paul and several campaign insiders, told the Alex Jones Show that rhetoric about a potential partnership wherein Ron Paul would be granted a VP slot was merely a political ruse to “make Ron Paul supporters like Romney”.
The controversy received fresh impetus earlier this week when Rick Santorum and his campaign manager claimed Paul and Romney were in cahoots to shoot down Santorum’s candidacy. The talking point has subsequently been pushed by the mainstream media, including a Washington Post article today that speculates on whether the alliance is genuine.
Rockwell said that although Romney may be a pleasant person, his political positions are anathema to Ron Paul given the fact that he is a globalist, a big government advocate and a warmonger.
“Just because he looks good in a suit doesn’t mean that he’s not one of the top creeps, otherwise he wouldn’t be supported by the Republican establishment and by the establishment in general, so no we don’t want anything to do with him except to oppose him,” said Rockwell. …”
Firing Line: Ron Paul and William F. Buckley (1988) – Part 1 of 4
Ron Paul and William F. Buckley discussing a Constitutional Republic and the necessary evils of government. In 1988, Ron Paul was running as a Libertarian Presidential Candidate.
Firing Line: Ron Paul and William F. Buckley (1988) – Part 2 of 4
Firing Line: Ron Paul and William F. Buckley (1988) – Part 3 of 4
Firing Line: Ron Paul and William F. Buckley (1988) – Part 4 of 4
Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr. “The Libertarian Credo”
Penn Jillette: Why I Am A Libertarian?
Don Boudreaux: Why I Am A Libertarian
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Read Full Post
| Make a Comment ( None so far )
As a classical liberal I was for both Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
Today I support the Tea Party, the FairTax and Ron Paul.
I will not vote for Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney or Rick Perry.
First, I do not trust them. All three are big time “flip floppers.”
Second, I consider them to be big government progressive Republicans–they are not conservatives or libertarians.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that has been a consistent principled conservative libertarian.
I trust Ron Paul.
If you are a tea party or FairTax supporter, please do not be fooled by Newt Gingrich.
I was for a time.
However, when I started to check him out, Gingrich failed the test.
Newt Gingrich is no friend of limited government and a constitutional republic.
Support and vote for Ron Paul.
SA@TheDC – Conservatism for What?
SA@TAC – Newt Gingrich is Not a Conservative
Newt Gingrich: Progressives took over both parties
SA@TheDC – ‘Fixing’ Big Government is Not Conservative
Newt Gingrich: I’m a Wilsonian
SA@TheDC – Conservatism’s Future: Young Americans for Liberty
Newt Gingrich was mesmerized by Bill Clinton
George Will: Newt Gingrich “is not a serious candidate” for president
Newt Gingrich: I supported Rockefeller over Goldwater
Newt Gingrich: Government can control diet & exercise
Newt Gingrich supporting ethanol subsidies in 1998
Newt Gingrich: We should subsidize Solar, Wind & Biofuels 
Newt Gingrich talks Climate Change in 2007
Newt Gingrich: Carbon Cutter & Bill Clinton Appeaser
Newt Gingrich Praises President Obama on the Stimulus & Healthcare
Why Barney Frank Hopes Newt Becomes GOP Nominee
Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America
The Real Newt Gingrich Part 1
The Real Newt Gingrich Part 2
The Real Newt Gingrich Part 3
The Real Newt Gingrich Part 4
Romney “Smiling” ad ’12
Ron Paul – “The one who can beat Obama”
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Read Full Post
| Make a Comment ( None so far )