And I Thought This One Was Settled in 1865

[HercDriver]

That's not an assumption I am making, although I won't fault you for drawing that assumption from my statement. The conversation is a convolution between overall political discussion and the specifics of presidential politics, so no harm no foul this time.

I have no memory problems with regards to the Bush presidency, but a Paul presidency would be utterly unlike a Bush presidency. I have complete confidence that if Paul won the presidency that he would not compromise on principles to any significant extent. Any "compromise" would likely be orders of magnitude smaller than the type made by the Bush administration ("scrapping capitalism in order to save it" comes to mind). Paul is like no other Republican presidential consideration, which while it is one of his major strengths, it is a significant drawback during a primary election; hence history. To call a Paul administration "just another Republican administration" would be, as they say, incredibly naive.

You're right that left-wingers are upset by Obama because they thought they were going to get "real change." However, President Obama, being the epitome of a politician, spoke out of both sides of his mouth. He made so many promises, so many contradictory statements, and was so 'likeable' ('electable'), that you could believe anything you wanted to about him. With Paul it's pretty straightforward and outlined with little wiggle room. Some Paultards are suffering from the same type of delusion (the "Truthers" come to mind) with regards to Paul, but just about every one of his supporters agrees with his core policies of sound money, sound budgets, personal and economic liberty, and non-interventionary foreign policy. You know, principled conservatism of the old school (not the neo-conservative "war is peace" and "debt is wealth" stuff and not the social conservative "you don't know what's good and moral for you" stuff).

You are a college student, no? I'm just wondering if you are proving squorch's earlier point.

I think it is cool if you support him; at least it will enable you to have some empathy for Ralph Nader supporters.

 

[Brett327]

He has zero chance to be elected, but (just for fun) explain to me how he wouldn't have to compromise when neither house of congress agreed with his "principles"?

Exactly the two points that came to mind. The President has much less power than people give him credit for - even less without a judiciary that is in lock-step. No congress is going to go for the kind of changes that Paul espouses - far too many interest groups to placate. More pipe dreams, I'm afraid.

Brett

 

[FlyinSpy]

Exactly the two points that came to mind. The President has much less power than people give him credit for - even less without a judiciary that is in lock-step. No congress is going to go for the kind of changes that Paul espouses - far too many interest groups to placate. More pipe dreams, I'm afraid.

Reminds me of a quote attibuted to Harry Truman, when discussing Eisenhower's election and the dffierence between being a general in the Army and being President:

"He'll sit here and he'll say "Do this!" and "Do that!" and nothing will happen. Poor Ike - it won't be a bit like the Army. He'll find it frustrating as hell."

Same would be true of a Ron Paul in that scenario; domestic Presidential power is remarkably limited. You can't do anything unilaterally, especially tectonic-plate-shift stuff like he talks about.

(As a side-note, I'd say Eisenhower still did remarkably well as Pres...)

 

[villanelle]

Exactly the two points that came to mind. The President has much less power than people give him credit for - even less without a judiciary that is in lock-step. No congress is going to go for the kind of changes that Paul espouses - far too many interest groups to placate. More pipe dreams, I'm afraid.

Brett

this.

Not to mention the fact that Congress will have a vested interest in making Paul look like incompetent and impotent. Just about the only thing the Republicans and Democrats could agree on would be that they don't want third party candidates to become a viable option. So of course they are going to block him at every turn. Make him look like a huge mistake so he'll be gone in 4 years and the R and D's can go back to having a 50/50 chance of controlling the White House. Unless RP were to win with an overwhelming majority (like 70% ish) there is no way Congress will cooperate.

 

[SkywardET]

You are a college student, no? I'm just wondering if you are proving squorch's earlier point.

I think it is cool if you support him; at least it will enable you to have some empathy for Ralph Nader supporters.

Yes, I am a college student, but I'm also active duty.

The Executive Branch is enormous. It is by far the largest branch of government and many would argue the most powerful. Paul can accomplish much internally within the confines of the Executive Branch even assuming zero support from Congress.

As an example, although people often complain about pork and earmarks and etc., most of the budget is slush-funded directly into the Executive Branch. Wikipedia puts this figure at 1-2% of the budget being allocated via Congress, meaning the President controls the allocation of well over 97%. Sure, the Legislature authorizes and appropriates, but the Executive spends. His executive orders would probably be mostly comprised of rescinding existing standing executive orders.

Furthermore, under a theoretical Paul presidency, you are likely to see numerous Senators and Representatives in Congress of at least a similar persuation. A general election with enough energy to put Paul in the hotseat will surely have several coat-tail riders. The number need not be anywhere close to 50%, as the political instincts of the surviving Congressmen would probably allow for enough votes enough times to do some actions.

One last point, a Paul presidency would mean that you would need literally about two thirds of the same general population that theoretically put him in office to react against him and place anti-Paul Congressmen in order to pass much of the current flavor (anti-Constitutional) of legislation in order to override the veto. Paul votes no on things like giving a gold medal to Rosa Parks, for crying out loud. That's a political freebie, but his reasoning is simple. Tax dollars should not be spent on such things, although he did offer to donate $100 of his own money to pool together with the rest of Congress to pay for the medal.

I think your next talking point should be his age. But I won't decide for ya.

I will still concede that it is very unlikely, but I don't share your exact disposition of cynicism.

 

[Brett327]

Yes, I am a college student, but I'm also active duty.

The Executive Branch is enormous. It is by far the largest branch of government and many would argue the most powerful. Paul can accomplish much internally within the confines of the Executive Branch even assuming zero support from Congress.

As an example, although people often complain about pork and earmarks and etc., most of the budget is slush-funded directly into the Executive Branch. Wikipedia puts this figure at 1-2% of the budget being allocated via Congress, meaning the President controls the allocation of well over 97%. Sure, the Legislature authorizes and appropriates, but the Executive spends. His executive orders would probably be mostly comprised of rescinding existing standing executive orders.

Furthermore, under a theoretical Paul presidency, you are likely to see numerous Senators and Representatives in Congress of at least a similar persuation. A general election with enough energy to put Paul in the hotseat will surely have several coat-tail riders. The number need not be anywhere close to 50%, as the political instincts of the surviving Congressmen would probably allow for enough votes enough times to do some actions.

One last point, a Paul presidency would mean that you would need literally about two thirds of the same general population that theoretically put him in office to react against him and place anti-Paul Congressmen in order to pass much of the current flavor (anti-Constitutional) of legislation in order to override the veto. Paul votes no on things like giving a gold medal to Rosa Parks, for crying out loud. That's a political freebie, but his reasoning is simple. Tax dollars should not be spent on such things, although he did offer to donate $100 of his own money to pool together with the rest of Congress to pay for the medal.

I think your next talking point should be his age. But I won't decide for ya.

I will still concede that it is very unlikely, but I don't share your exact disposition of cynicism.

This is precisely why he's completely unelectable. However well reasoned or intentioned, this kind of thing is political suicide. You're being far too generous - A Ron Paul presidency isn't "very unlikely," it's absurdly impossible.

At any rate, I'm curious as to what kinds of unilateral governing President Paul would effect through enacting or recinding EOs. Do tell. Your view of how congressionally appropriated funds are spent by the Executive is a bit simplistic as well. Using the annual defense appropriations bill as an example, the President can't decide to spend 95% of the appropriated funds on MREs then buy one F-35 with what remains. It's a much more complex machine than I think you understand.

Brett

 

[Flash]

....As an example, although people often complain about pork and earmarks and etc., most of the budget is slush-funded directly into the Executive Branch. Wikipedia puts this figure at 1-2% of the budget being allocated via Congress, meaning the President controls the allocation of well over 97%. Sure, the Legislature authorizes and appropriates, but the Executive spends. His executive orders would probably be mostly comprised of rescinding existing standing executive orders......

Congress decides and the executive branch spends, according to the budget law passed. The executive just can't ignore it, doesn't work that way.

 

[NAVYBM2]

I never understood what is the outrage at a little bigger government. It seems to me that a lot of people are forgetting that the most prosperous time in American history came after a government that makes today's government look like city hall in _________city, Nebraska. In WWII the US government help bring the unemployment rate from over 13,000,000 to about 600,000 in about 3 years.
Yes, I know that this is not WWII, but I do think a big government might actually help bring this country back on track. Now,I am not saying they should stick around forever, but in hard times it seems to help.

 

[magnetfreezer]

I never understood what is the outrage at a little bigger government. It seems to me that a lot of people are forgetting that the most prosperous time in American history came after a government that makes today's government look like city hall in _________city, Nebraska. In WWII the US government help bring the unemployment rate from over 13,000,000 to about 600,000 in about 3 years.
Yes, I know that this is not WWII, but I do think a big government might actually help bring this country back on track. Now,I am not saying they should stick around forever, but in hard times it seems to help.

In WWII most of the population was either employed in the military or producing defense equipment (which the military was buying a lot of). Spending as much as is necessary on defense is explicitly authorized in the constitution. Most modern big government programs are not. Plus, when you buy a lot of airplanes/ships, it expands manufacturing capability and you end up with X $B of assets in return for your money. When you spend X $B on bank/individual welfare, you end up with artificially inflated stock prices, home prices, and plus-size clothing manufacturing capability.

 

[Frank683]

Well, if they replied with any act based on common sense or logic, they probably would be ignored. Plus, it's about time the two party system got some form of improvement. So, to sum up, tip of the hat to the Tea Party, wag of the finger to taking the militia too far (which we all know is going to happen).

Thomas Jefferson said "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."

 

[NAVYBM2]

In WWII most of the population was either employed in the military or producing defense equipment (which the military was buying a lot of). Spending as much as is necessary on defense is explicitly authorized in the constitution. Most modern big government programs are not. Plus, when you buy a lot of airplanes/ships, it expands manufacturing capability and you end up with X $B of assets in return for your money. When you spend X $B on bank/individual welfare, you end up with artificially inflated stock prices, home prices, and plus-size clothing manufacturing capability.

You make a good point, but I will have to disagree! When you convert to produce military equipment you expend military equipment manufacturing only. As far as I know, people didn't fly around in B-17s after the war. If you are interested in this kind of thing I encourage you to read the book by Donald M. Nelson called Arsenal of Democracy: The Story of American War Production, he was a member of the war production board in WWII and talks about all the difficulties of converting and how the government had its hand in almost everything at the time, they didn't just buy the equipment they were micromanaging everything, from the moment steel was produced to the moment it was blown up by the German 88s in N. Africa or Europe.
Today we don't have a big war to support, so the spending goes elsewhere, it may not be specifically authorized in the constitution, but I am sure it would have been had they know to what extent the world would change.

 

[ryan1234]

I never understood what is the outrage at a little bigger government. It seems to me that a lot of people are forgetting that the most prosperous time in American history came after a government that makes today's government look like city hall in _________city, Nebraska. In WWII the US government help bring the unemployment rate from over 13,000,000 to about 600,000 in about 3 years.
Yes, I know that this is not WWII, but I do think a big government might actually help bring this country back on track. Now,I am not saying they should stick around forever, but in hard times it seems to help.

Interesting time frame you've brought up. A comprehensive look at the history... particularly around that era (or a few years prior) you may see many of the problems (that we're in today) initiated by trying to 'solve' unemployment. During that era, the largest ponzi-type scheme in history was started by the government, Social Security. Many would argue that the administration at the time (FDR)' efforts actually prolonged the great depression... had there not have been WW2, and the reasons stated by magnetfreezer.

Look at any real time where the government has significantly expanded (indirectly and directly) outside the scope of defense and you will see failure, after insolvency, after failure. The GSAs are the obvious example (Fannie and Freddie)... but there are others.

IMHO there is a fine line between creating a viable infrastructure, etc and encroaching on the very things that set America apart from other countries as far as rights and freedoms.

 

[Spekkio]

Congress decides and the executive branch spends, according to the budget law passed. The executive just can't ignore it, doesn't work that way.

The Bush Presidency proved that the Presidency can do a lot without Congressional approval and get away with it.

It's much harder to reduce a budget than to make it bigger, though.

I agree that Ron Paul will never be President, and for good reason. Listen to that man speak, then picture him in front of a foreign leader trying to push a domestic cause... yea, no go.

 

[Brett327]

The Bush Presidency proved that the Presidency can do a lot without Congressional approval and get away with it.

To what are you referring to specifically?

Brett

 

[Flash]

The Bush Presidency proved that the Presidency can do a lot without Congressional approval and get away with it.

Not so much when it comes to money, ain't too easy keeping that under the radar.