President Bush, Take 2: Mike Huckabee

[Tipsy]

If you liked George W. Bush's brand of big-spending, big-government conservatism, you'll love Mike Huckabee.

During his two-term tenure, spending increased by more than 65 percent — at three times the rate of inflation.

The number of government workers increased by 20 percent, and the state's debt services increased by nearly $1 billion

the average Arkansan's tax burden increased 47 percent...including increases in the state's gas, sales, income, and cigarette taxes. He raised taxes on everything from groceries to nursing home beds

Because he believes that "art and music are as important as math and science" in public schools, he wants these programs funded — and thus, directed and administered — federally.

he now calls for a national smoking ban

Huckabee has called for increased federal spending on a variety of programs from infrastructure to health care. He wants more energy subsidies, including, naturally, more subsidies for ethanol. In fact, he supports increased agricultural subsidies generally.

He rails against high corporate profits and attacks free trade agreements. As governor, he raised the minimum wage and increased business regulation. He says it is "a biblical duty" to pass more regulation to fight global warming.

Huckabee: The Biggest Big-Government Conservative

Imagine an even bigger government, more religious fanatic, Bush. And this guy's starting to lead in the early states too...

[Eric]

Ish. I think I'm gonna go with the black guy. The lesser of the evils.

God help us if Hillary gets elected. Especially BF considering she thinks video games are the spawn of evil in children.

[Tipsy]

Mike Huckabee is really big on censorship as well. Except for him, it's his "biblical duty."

[Eric]

Politics and religion are suppose to be separated. Stupid government.

[Emperor Pan I]

Ron Paul FTW.

[Flashosaurus]

richard dryfus

[MacMan]

Originally Posted by Emperor Pan I

Ron Paul FTW.

Paultard.

[Sakuhta]

Originally Posted by Emperor Pan I

Ron Paul FTW.

Ron Paul is an imbecile.

And big spending has nothing to do with neo-conservatism or extreme liberalism, contrary to popular ignorant belief. Before Bill Clinton there hadn't been a surplus, let alone balanced budget in 30 years. It is another one of the pitiful ways of politics, it's not George Bush's egotism. George Bush and the presidential economic council created a balanced budget, it's congress that drafted the $390 billion deficit we have.

[N[U]TS]

Originally Posted by Sakuhta

Ron Paul is an imbecile.

George Bush and the presidential economic council created a balanced budget, it's congress that drafted the $390 billion deficit we have.

OMG finally someone who understands...:bounce:

[Ninja_Blue]

Yea, George Bush isn't the problem, it's the people advising him.

[Emperor Pan I]

Originally Posted by Sakuhta

Ron Paul is an imbecile.

Source

[Sakuhta]

Originally Posted by Emperor Pan I

Source

Just about any Ron Paul quote there is. He's an extremely hard noses realist, he doesn't understand global economics. He wants to go back to a non-fiat based money system, which is 100% IMPOSSIBLE in todays international market. He wants to abolish the income tax, which is an arguable issue, but at this moment in time our governments funding could not handle losing 49% of its revenue. He also wants to end the 'war on drugs' without legalizing the drugs themselves. This is extremely imbecilic, methamphetamine sell and use used to be a massive issue in the Southern and Southwestern United States. Meth trade has gone down 80% since the beginning of the 'war on drugs,' as well as massive decreases in other drug use. Drugs will grow to an even larger issue than before if we discontinue current policy.

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by Sakuhta

Just about any Ron Paul quote there is. He's an extremely hard noses realist, he doesn't understand global economics. He wants to go back to a non-fiat based money system, which is 100% IMPOSSIBLE in todays international market.

Why exactly would it be impossible? The only reason it doesn't work in the United States right now is because of government spending being too large, the government refusing to be restrained by a non-fiat money standard, and the government refusing to give up control over macroeconomic policy (something that needs to be done regardless - they try to use it as a manipulative tool and have failed consistently, from the Great Depression to the Housing and Dot com bubbles).

Personally, I support a fiat money system regulated by an annual fixed supply growth rate, however I would absolutely support Ron Paul's position over the current situation. It wouldn't be an instant change, but promoting the growth and eventual takeover of a non-fiat system is completely possible.

Originally Posted by Sakuhta

He wants to abolish the income tax, which is an arguable issue, but at this moment in time our governments funding could not handle losing 49% of its revenue.

Then why not argue the logical future response to a loss in revenue - a cut in the budget? Arguing a future action against a changeable short term budget is completely illogical.

Originally Posted by Sakuhta

He also wants to end the 'war on drugs' without legalizing the drugs themselves. This is extremely imbecilic, methamphetamine sell and use used to be a massive issue in the Southern and Southwestern United States. Meth trade has gone down 80% since the beginning of the 'war on drugs,' as well as massive decreases in other drug use. Drugs will grow to an even larger issue than before if we discontinue current policy.

He wants to end the drug war and give the the states power over drug laws. How exactly is obeying the Constitution and allowing the states to have jurisdiction over matters they constitutionally do "imbecilic." You can argue whether or not drugs should be legal, but arguing that drugs are a good reason for a federal usurpation of state powers is the "imbecilic" decision.

[N[U]TS]

Originally Posted by Tipsy

He wants to end the drug war and give the the states power over drug laws. How exactly is obeying the Constitution and allowing the states to have jurisdiction over matters they constitutionally do "imbecilic." You can argue whether or not drugs should be legal, but arguing that drugs are a good reason for a federal usurpation of state powers is the "imbecilic" decision.

Giving states the power make their own laws on drugs will not end the drug war. It is simply wishful thinking.

there are ways of going around the constitution to take away state rights. The drinking age is a prime example. The goverment took that right away from states by threatning to cut off federal monies for highways. No state could afford to lose that kind of money so natrually they give in.

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by N[u]TS

Giving states the power make their own laws on drugs will not end the drug war. It is simply wishful thinking.

there are ways of going around the constitution to take away state rights. The drinking age is a prime example. The goverment took that right away from states by threatning to cut off federal monies for highways. No state could afford to lose that kind of money so natrually they give in.

It will end the drug war (as in foreign policy wise + DEA) and that's the only thing the federal level can do - maybe a state level one will start, but that's all a president can do. Also, do you really think a president that wants legalization as the end result is going to not veto that kind of loop hole? The thing about Ron Paul is he recognizes we live in a federal system rather than a unitary one. His position is one of what a president should be because he actually recognizes that presidential powers have constitutional limits.

[N[U]TS]

Originally Posted by Tipsy

It will end the drug war (as in foreign policy wise + DEA) and that's the only thing the federal level can do - maybe a state level one will start, but that's all a president can do. Also, do you really think a president that wants legalization as the end result is going to not veto that kind of loop hole? The thing about Ron Paul is he recognizes we live in a federal system rather than a unitary one. His position is one of what a president should be because he actually recognizes that presidential powers have constitutional limits.

you fail to recognize that a president can not promise you these things that he says he will do. A president does have limited power.

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by N[u]TS

you fail to recognize that a president can not promise you these things that he says he will do. A president does have limited power.

I fully recognize that; this is about what Ron Paul wants to do:

Just about any Ron Paul quote there is. He's an extremely hard noses realist, he doesn't understand global economics. He wants to go back to a non-fiat based money system, which is 100% IMPOSSIBLE in todays international market. He wants to abolish the income tax, which is an arguable issue, but at this moment in time our governments funding could not handle losing 49% of its revenue. He also wants to end the 'war on drugs' without legalizing the drugs themselves. This is extremely imbecilic, methamphetamine sell and use used to be a massive issue in the Southern and Southwestern United States. Meth trade has gone down 80% since the beginning of the 'war on drugs,' as well as massive decreases in other drug use. Drugs will grow to an even larger issue than before if we discontinue current policy.

[N[U]TS]

Originally Posted by Tipsy

I fully recognize that; this is about what Ron Paul wants to do:

ok... and he wants to do away with the income tax how does he plan on keeping the goverment aflot if he does away with the income tax?

[MacMan]

Originally Posted by Sakuhta

George Bush and the presidential economic council created a totally unfeasible balanced budget, it's congress that drafted the $390 billion deficit we have.

Corrected.

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by N[u]TS

ok... and he wants to do away with the income tax how does he plan on keeping the goverment aflot if he does away with the income tax?

Massively cut spending through cutting/phasing out welfare state programs, restore state rights (thus giving them responsibility over matters that the federal government is paying for), and saving money from overseas spending.

Originally Posted by MacMan

Corrected.

Agree.