Because, other than that, just look at Ron Paul’s economic plan.
1) Shut down the Dept of Education, Commerce, Energy, Interior and HUD. (why not throw in the EPA and ATF as well?)
2) Cut the corporate tax rate to 15% and make the Bush tax cuts permanent.
3) Block grant Medicare and Social Security to the states and allow young workers to opt out.
4) Repeal ObamaCare, Sarbanes-Oxley and Ogabe’s Wall Street regulations from last year.
5) Cut the total federal “work” force by 10% and cut the presidential pay to the level of the median income for all Americans.
Now there’s some change that His Imperial Majesty can actually believe in!
We wonder if there’s a way that foreign policy could be made off-limits to the president? If so, we’re all behind Ron.
I’ve always said that. I don’t trust him as C-in-C. This is a man who wants to dismantle CIA, and doesn’t trust his intelligence community. As military commander in chief, the IC should be his first and most important source of information that would guide his foreign policy and military decisions, but he already has his mind made up about… Read more »
Well, another reason to piss on Mittens:
Mitt Romney and The Advice of Evil Men
There’s always Rand Paul. In his case it looks like the apple rolled as far away from the tree ias it could. He doesn’t seem as cracked as “Daddy Paul.” Of course I cold be wrong.
Rand Paul has slightly more sense than his father, in this respect. Ron Paul is crazy. Don’t get me wrong.. I call myself a “Republitarian” for a reason, a lot of stuff Libertarians say makes a lot of sense. But while I support their cause that economic regulation, the welfare state, the EPA, etc etc… is all unconstitutional… foreign policy,… Read more »
One useful purpose Ron Paul could serve is setting the bar for eventual nominee’s economic policy. A smart candidate would find a way to make Ron Paul a part of the team … mostly so they wouldn’t have to deal with him taking potshots as an “outsider.” Heaven forbid that he be given a cabinet post, but it wouldn’t hurt… Read more »
As for cutting the POTUS salary, that’s brilliant! Then we’d see who REALLY wants to serve, and who’s just there for the perks! I have to disagree. Cutting the President’s salary would mean that only those who were already wealthy could comfortably hold the office. Besides, the Presidents’ salary is so trivial an expense it scarcely matters. Finally, its not… Read more »
‘Hear that LC Patton. The salary ain’t nuthin’ compared to the rest of the perk-o-rama, not even counting the power trippin’. ‘Always figured that the person that was smart enough to do the job best would also be smart enough not to get involved. So, we will always elect not the best qualified, but the most silver tongued of the… Read more »
Someone once said that the people who most want political office, political power, are the ones who most definitely shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near it. I’ve had the thought now and then, that political office shouldn’t be filled by the popularity contests called elections but by a draft–that way it really would be true that anyone could be President. Wether… Read more »
Vodkapundit’s description of Ron Paul in action: “As usual with him, the first part is brilliant; the second part is dog barking.”
totally out of the blue – nothing to do with the rest, but
HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO MY GRANDSONS
Wait, why eliminate the Department of Commerce? Isn’t regulating foreign and interstate commerce a Constitutional mandate of the Federal government? And why get rid of Commerce but not Labor?
LC Patton says: I have to disagree. Cutting the President’s salary would mean that only those who were already wealthy could comfortably hold the office. Besides, the Presidents’ salary is so trivial an expense it scarcely matters. Finally, its not as though the $400,000 salary was the perk people are interested in, even if they don’t want to serve; they… Read more »
LC Patton @ #:
ALL politicians’ pay consists of two components – the salary, that many believe is all they get, and the “All they can steal” component, which most won’t confront them with.
Has anyone ever seen a “poor” politician?
The point of of limiting POTUS’s salary, if I understood all of this correctly, wasn’t so much about POTUS himself, but about limiting the maximum salary for a large number of appointed bureaucrats, many of whom are not allowed to make more than the president. That would have more of a bottom-line impact as well as, over time, a reforming… Read more »
LC Panzermann says: The point of of limiting POTUS’s salary, if I understood all of this correctly, wasn’t so much about POTUS himself, but about limiting the maximum salary for a large number of appointed bureaucrats, many of whom are not allowed to make more than the president. That would have more of a bottom-line impact as well as, over… Read more »
Back to this thread’s subject:
There are times when a lunatic is exactly what the doctor ordered – only after those MORE loonie (like Iran) are sent back to the stone age.
LC Gladiator says: … and how many of those “subsequent” conflicts could have been avoided had a better job been done to begin with? We either bend the bastards to our way of thinking at the outset, wipe them out completely, or don’t screw with them in the first place and let their implosion come from their own actions, whoever… Read more »
LC Nicki the Resident Misanthropic Bitch @ #:
Nicki – one of the hazards of the Font. He meant DOI, Dept. of Interior, not Dol, Dept. of Labor.
LC Gregory @ #:
AH! Thank ya, kindly!
LC Gladiator says: