Ron Paul's article is from here. Ron Paul's words are in italic followed by my explanations;
Supporters of warfare, welfare, and Wonder Woman cheered last week as Congress passed a one trillion dollar “omnibus” appropriation bill. This legislation funds the operations of government for the remainder of the fiscal year. Wonder Woman fans can cheer that buried in the bill was a $10,000 grant for a theater program to explore the comic book heroine.
Funny that the Federal government has so much money to spend that they seem to give it away frivolously (especially if you don't like Wonder Woman or don't consider super heroes to be a part of American Culture worth exploring or sponsoring). On the other hand if this theater production leads to a movie and becomes a part of pop culture it could be seen as contributing to the diversity of American Society which is what distinguishes it from less diverse societies such as a Communist Society where diversity is but necessity limited by central planning. Since a grant allows a private person to do something without Government oversight it's a modern equivalent to receiving a boon from the Emperor such as that tradition of past centuries which allowed people like Galileo and Leonardo Da Vinci to work and leave us thier knowledge or like the grant Columbus received using which he discovered America. The issue becomes WHO should pick the ones giving grants or if the Federal Government should even be involved in promoting knowledge or exploration of culture or research. This debate I has yet to occur or I haven't heard of it yet and will cover it later.
That is just one of the many outrageous projects buried in this 1,582 page bill. The legislation gives the Department of Education more money to continue nationalizing education via “common core.” Also, despite new evidence of Obamacare’s failure emerging on an almost daily basis, the Omnibus bill does nothing to roll back this disastrous law.
I agree that these bills are way too long. They should be short bills dealing with one issue at a time so there can be public knowledge of it and a debate if necessary. This can only be achieved slowly and with allot of work for the legislative branches who are more concerned with elections most of the time than anything else. I think it would be a good idea to limit everyone in the Senate and Congress to one term to keep them focused on work with strict oversight to prevent some of the corruption which has become systemic in the Federal Government which reached extremes under Bush that never before or since has been surpassed (NSA was made official with the Patriot Act with huge public and legislative and conservative support):
Example of corruption: Sex for oil dealings...
Even though the Omnibus bill dramatically increases government spending, it passed with the support of many self-described “fiscal conservatives.” Those wondering why anyone who opposes increasing spending on programs like common core and Obamacare would vote for the bill, may find an answer in the fact that the legislation increases funding for the “Overseas Continuing Operations” — which is the official name for the war budget — for the first time since 2010. This $85 billion war budget contains $6 billion earmarked for projects benefiting Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and other big defense contractors.
Since corporations stand to make allot of money from Federal Government bills & laws they will obviously apply thier resources to public relations campaigns to bring public opinion to favor them. All of the media is under corporate control which means all the people on corporate boards and big shareholders and can move corporate policy are open the the SAME corruption possibilities as the federal Government.
Since corporations stand to make allot of money from Federal Government bills & laws they will obviously apply thier resources to public relations campaigns to bring public opinion to favor them. All of the media is under corporate control which means all the people on corporate boards and big shareholders and can move corporate policy are open the the SAME corruption possibilities as the federal Government.
Ever since “sequestration” went into effect at the beginning of last year, the military-industrial complex’s congressional cheering session has complained that sequestration imposed “draconian cuts” on the Pentagon that will “decimate” our military — even though most of the "cuts" were actually reductions in the "projected rate of growth." In fact, under sequestration, defense spending was to increase by 18 percent over ten years, as opposed to growing by 20 percent without sequestration.
A start to reducing the Pentagon's budget would be getting rid of all these excess military bases...
I'm sure they have invented faster missiles, planes and drones by now making all these bases redundant unless there is a secret plan for American Empire (forbidden by the Constitution) OR the military is being used to make money overseas i.e. immoral AND unconstitutional (and not just from the CIA's heroin smuggling).
Note: I don't think the debt bubble is as bad as Ron Paul makes it out to be especially since public support for that idea comes from a faulty study(which means the debt bubble isn't an IMMEDIATE concern, it's something Ron Paul has been talking about with the same ferocity for 30 years - he may eventually be proven right so something has to be done I just think things should be organized on a ladder of importance and not thrown up in the air for the war party to take advantage of to cause more problems). It seems more like this idea of a debt bubble is being used by the conservative right to push policies whose immediate effect would be death of US Citizens which technically, as per the US Constitution, constitutes "war on Citizens" (i.e. treason as per article 3 section 3). It makes more sense to find a way to improve society and make any cuts with a plan to help people as well. Simply allowing them to die using a faulty study seems crazy and heartless. It's also why I think Conservative Libertarianism is a misnomer as you can't make war on US Society and declare it's for it's freedom in the same breath... unless you are schizophrenic or simply don't understand what you are talking about.
Many of the defenders of increased war spending are opponents of welfare, but they are willing to set aside their opposition to increased welfare spending in order to increase warfare spending. They are supported in this position by the lobbyists for the military-industrial complex and the neoconservatives, whose continued influence on foreign policy is mystifying. After all, the neocons were the major promoters of the disastrous military intervention in Iraq.
What if I said the Neo-Cons took over in 2001 and ended transparency forever so we would never know that they are really in-charge? Notice how investigations took place under Bush-Cheney (there was never a real investigation and even less accountability than the Obama Administration!):
While many neocons give lip service to limiting domestic spending, their main priority remains protecting high levels of military spending to maintain an interventionist foreign policy. The influence of the neocons provides intellectual justification for politicians to vote for ever-larger military budgets — and break the campaign promises to vote against increases in spending and debt.
This is quite simply true. IN the following video you will notice that during the last stimulus debate the main argument Fox News put forward was that spending is bad because of the dis proven study on debt bubbles BUT spending on war was fine. In other words, spending IS the answer they just want to spend money on stuff that kills people so they corporations they support can make money (i.e. war machine manufacturers and oil companies).
At 1:21 - Hannity explains it was WW2 that got the economy out of a depression and he is right. The extra war spending boosted the related industries and the draft took care of the excess population. I don;t think that's a good solution for our time as starting another World War is stupid (which may be why there is a war on terror and why Iran wants the Nuclear Option as the GOP is pushing war strategies and collapsing the economy to attain those goals so ultimately, unless they go to prison after a transparent investigation, they will succeed).
Fortunately, in recent years more Americans have recognized that a constant defense of liberty requires opposing both war and welfare. Many of these Americans, especially the younger ones, have joined the intellectual and political movement in favor of limiting government in all areas. This movement presents the most serious challenge the bipartisan welfare-warfare consensus has faced in generations. Hopefully, the influence of this movement will lead to bipartisan deals cutting both welfare and warfare spending.
I agree and disagree (also explained above). The current solution by the "conservative libertarians" is to let both go and let society fall while the conservative libertarians implicitly support the war party side. Ultimately thier actions WILL lead to more war (as the side they are supporting is the GOP and Rand Paul will never win Jeb Bush will - it's pre-destined, so to speak - and after opposing the Democrats for so long the Conservative Libertarians will be unconsciously pulled to support the war party and thus they will hand the American Constitution it's final defeat as I don't see America returning back form the abyss if it has to suffer through another GOP Administration). IN fact, they may get thier ideal of less welfare with the war so in total even more people will die than they intended and it will be on thier heads whether they have the emotional maturity to accept it or not.
This is the problem with a shallow perspective on how actions must be taken to accomplish goals. Having blind faith in an outdated 'golden age' perspective on ones past is actually very common to all forms of religious fundamentalism and as such is easily manipulated using boogie men as fear is it's main motivator and an escape from the present to some remote past. I'm not sure if Ron Paul understands how much American Society was founded on Liberal ideals of the founding fathers or the financial structure that gave American Financial Freedom it's birth. If he understands them I have to question his implementation of his current strategy as creating more problems than solving them.
The problem is constitutional adjustments made during war which need to be brought back to normal levels but as yet haven't been. The IRS is a separate issue and should be left for some later time. All issues can't be dealt with at once without causing serious damage to peoples lives and the structure of society that helps people live.
This is the problem with a shallow perspective on how actions must be taken to accomplish goals. Having blind faith in an outdated 'golden age' perspective on ones past is actually very common to all forms of religious fundamentalism and as such is easily manipulated using boogie men as fear is it's main motivator and an escape from the present to some remote past. I'm not sure if Ron Paul understands how much American Society was founded on Liberal ideals of the founding fathers or the financial structure that gave American Financial Freedom it's birth. If he understands them I have to question his implementation of his current strategy as creating more problems than solving them.
The problem is constitutional adjustments made during war which need to be brought back to normal levels but as yet haven't been. The IRS is a separate issue and should be left for some later time. All issues can't be dealt with at once without causing serious damage to peoples lives and the structure of society that helps people live.
The question facing Americans is not whether Congress will ever cut spending. The question is will the spending be reduced in an orderly manner that avoids inflecting massive harm on those depending on government programs, or will spending be slashed in response to an economic crisis caused by ever-increasing levels of deficit spending. Because politicians are followers rather than leaders, it is ultimately up to the people what course we will take. This is why it is vital that those of us who understand the dangerous path we are currently on do all we can to expand the movement for liberty, peace, and prosperity.
Here I agree. The sequester cuts hurts people and a 'machine' i.e. US Citizens and the Pentagon. The fact that one side is backing US Citizens and the other side is backing the war machine with both parties being supported by relevant corporations and NOT individuals is the military-industrial complex which exists in the shadows but whose influence seems to run everything through manipulation of public opinion. It is true... running the country through corporations and a war machine while trying to maintain economic prosperity is challenge that the military-industrial complex seems destined to fail and if it still has power when that happens we could all fall with them.
Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
