POLL BOMBSHELL: Ron Paul Is Close To A Win In Iowa

[Expat]

. (Though I would argue that Congress isn't capable of designating every dime - that wouldn't be efficient and Congress doesn't have the expertise.)

They shouldn't have or need the expertise if they confined themselves to the enumerated powers in the Constitution.

Perhaps dishonest is too strong, certainly misleading, and unattractively clever.

In any other politician this group would be decrying the cleverness that he displays, but for some reason in Congressman Paul they seem to find it endearing. When I watched his smarmy comments on Leno, I was left shaking my head.

 

[dross]

You're right. However, what I've seen from some people (I think you were one of them, but not sure) is that they complain that Paul isn't politically savvy enough or whatever to enact change/etc. Or that the problem with Paul and libertarians is that they don't play the political game to get support. Seems to me that this shows that Paul is aware of the political game, and when he doesn't play it it's a stand for principal, not that he's ignorant or incapable of doing so when he can without sacrificing his values. If anything, his ability to spin something that he's consistent about in a positive way is boon to his overall electability and qualification for political office.

I'm sure you can agree at least that there is no hypocrisy in what he did, and that his ability to frame it in a positive way is a good political move.

I don't hold it against Ron Paul. I've said before and I'll say again, I'll vote for him in the primary if I think at that time that he can beat Obama. I'll certainly vote for him in the general. I agree with him on pretty much everything except foreign policy.

I just don't think he walks on water.

 

[dross]

They shouldn't have or need the expertise if they confined themselves to the enumerated powers in the Constitution.

I think that's too simplistic. Congress has the enumerated power to raise and provide for an Army. I don't think that means they should be going line by line and deciding how much gets spend on guns, how much on ammo, and how much on food. The executive branch has a purpose, and that's one of them - to execute what Congress enacts.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I think that's too simplistic. Congress has the enumerated power to raise and provide for an Army. I don't think that means they should be going line by line and deciding how much gets spend on guns, how much on ammo, and how much on food. The executive branch has a purpose, and that's one of them - to execute what Congress enacts.

I think Congress meddles too much in the budget process. Congress is empowered with the laying and collecting of taxes. The Executive Branch is empowered with administering the government. Earmarks create little fifedoms and encourages the tit-for-tat budgeting. The entire process is corrupting.

I would like to believe that the Founders intent was for Congressional delegations to represent the will of the voters in national government, not to act as their pork farmers. I know, it's time for me to wake up and go to school now.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

They were given the ability to have a standing navy in the constitution, but not trusted to have a standing army. (raising one however is different)