The 2008 Federal Budget, by RON PAUL

Ron Paul, an actual conservative, not your common socialist neo-con...

The 2008 Federal Budget [align=left] Ron Paul
Prisonplanet.com
Tuesday April 3, 2007 [/align]
The fiscal year 2008 budget, passed in the House of Representative last week, is a monument to irresponsibility and profligacy. It shows that Congress remains oblivious to the economic troubles facing the nation, and that political expediency trumps all common sense in Washington. To the extent that proponents and supporters of these unsustainable budget increases continue to win reelection, it also shows that many Americans unfortunately continue to believe government can provide them with a free lunch.
To summarize, Congress proposes spending roughly $3 trillion in 2008. When I first came to Congress in 1976, the federal government spent only about $300 billion. So spending has increased tenfold in thirty years, and tripled just since 1990.
About one-third of this $3 trillion is so-called discretionary spending; the remaining two-thirds is deemed â??mandatoryâ?� entitlement spending, which means mostly Social Security and Medicare. Iâ??m sure many American voters would be shocked to know their elected representatives essentially have no say over two-thirds of the federal budget, but that is indeed the case. In fact the most disturbing problem with the budget is the utter lack of concern for the coming entitlement meltdown.
For those who thought a Democratic congress would end the war in Iraq, think again: their new budget proposes supplemental funds totaling about $150 billion in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009 for Iraq. This is in addition to the ordinary Department of Defense budget of more than $500 billion, which the Democrats propose increasing each year just like the Republicans.
The substitute Republican budget is not much better: while it does call for freezing some discretionary spending next year, it increases military spending to make up the difference. The bottom line is that both the Democratic and Republican budget proposals call for more total spending in 2008 than 2007.
My message to my colleagues is simple: If you claim to support smaller government, donâ??t introduce budgets that increase spending over the previous year. Can any fiscal conservative in Congress honestly believe that overall federal spending cannot be cut 25%? We could cut spending by two-thirds and still have a federal government as large as it was in 1990.
Congressional budgets essentially are meaningless documents, with no force of law beyond the coming fiscal year. Thus budget projections are nothing more than political posturing, designed to justify deficit spending in the near term by promising fiscal restraint in the future. But the time for thrift never seems to arrive: there is always some new domestic or foreign emergency that requires more spending than projected.

My message to my colleagues is simple: If you claim to support smaller government, donâ??t introduce budgets that increase spending over the previous year. Can any fiscal conservative in Congress honestly believe that overall federal spending cannot be cut 25%? We could cut spending by two-thirds and still have a federal government as large as it was in 1990.
Ron paul and all libertarians would eliminate Federal income tax, Social Security, Medicare, welfare, school funding and basically all entitlement programs while funding the pentagon with unlimited funds. This would be a country bought and paid for by corporations. He would privatize everything and widen the gap between rich and poor untill there was no middle class left. Any union organization would be disbanded as he feels the workers have no rights, every man for himself is the motto. You see, libertarianism only works for the rich. If you are rich, you certainly don't want to pay any taxes, you don't want to help anyone else get up the ladder (Schooling), yeah they say private schooling, but with no money to pay for it, you would end up with rulers and serfs. If you are a millionaire, libertarianism is for you, but for the proletariate, this is a no go.

wow.

want to show me where paul said he'd fund the pentagon without limits?

you're describing basically the opposite of ron paul. not sure where you came up with that stuff...anything i've ever heard him say or seen him do is nothing like what you claim...

but if you want an elite class and serfdom, vote for hillary or obama or giuliani or mccain...

if you're scared of a government that operates under the constitution it was supposed to...then don't vote for ron paul.

I came up with this "stuff" from my tenure in this country with eyes wide open for 66 years. Obviously you really don't know what a real libertarian stands for. A libertarian wants to do away with as much government as possible leaving only the military to protect the country and their wealth. I'm not against all libertarian ideas, some less government interferance in our lives would be welcome. But Ron Paul as seen on Bill Maher, would do away with most of Government entitlements, IE. social security, My main retirement income, and Medicare Etc. I'll argue the social security issue with you on another post, but the real deal is: libertarians tend to be rich, hence the doing away with all encumberances on their incomes. They believe that government should not restrict their business dealings in any way. No controls on the environment or wages or any other rules or regulations that might cost them money. These are the real libertarians. the wannabees can't understand the real ramifications of what a country would look like under libertarian rule. Can you say anarchy! Sometimes, unlike you, I debate from reason, not cut and paste. BTW. the constitution, although an admirable document, can not address all the complexities of modern life. I believe we should adhere to the Ideals of the document but apply logic and common sense in interpreting them.