Why It Would Be OK to Vote For Paul in the General Election - If We Must

I previously tried to show the Paul Supporters how they should frame Paul's [censored] ideas about foreign policy in the context of the end result, but they were more interested in causing fights and attaching blame.  As I and other 'Paul is at the bottom of my list' voters have said that we will vote for Paul if he wins, I'll try again to explain why.

In summary: The financial situation of the US will prevent it from funding the US military at levels that can support numerous overseas deployments and bases. Although the money spent on Defense is not the reason, there are too many people dependent on entitlements and they will keep enough socialist politicians in power to prevent Defense spending if entitlements are cut.

The US is currently involved in a bloodless civil war between Socialists and Capitalists.  It is being fought in Schools, Courts, and Politics. The main casualty of this war up to this point is the US financial situation.  The Socialists have been able to convince enough people to vote themselves Government benefits, and the Capitalists have held on to enough people that pay taxes and don't like it when they go up. The end result is that Politicians have evolved into being Pro-benefits and Anti-Tax.

This has created a populace that either doesn't care how much is spent as long as their taxes don't go up, or doesn't care how high taxes go as long as they get their benefits. Each group is blissfully ignorant of the damage that is done by the thing they don't care about.  Out of control spending would not occur if EVERYONE's taxes went up to pay for it.  There would be the proper balance between what people are willing to pay in taxes and the amount they get in benefits.

Instead, the Politicians found a way to keep themselves in power: Borrow the difference between what one group wants in benefits and the other is willing to pay for.  This has led to a deficit that is more than half of revenue, a President that thinks money is in infinite supply at a constant value and that he can morally take it from anyone that has more than he believes they need, and a congress that can't bring itself to cut spending to the point where they start calling a reduction in a planned increase a cut.

Over the years, going back all the way to post WWII, the US has accumulated 15 Trillion in debt. Currently, due to the Socialist take over of US government from 2006 to 2010, we have a deficit of 1.3 Trillion dollars, revenue of  2.2 Trillion dollars, and a debt of 15 Trillion.  In 2010, we spent 1.98 Trillion on SS, Medicaid, Medicare and other entitlements.  We also spent 196 Billion on interest payments on the debt. Add this up and you get ~2.2 Trillion dollars. This means that if you reduce the federal government budget to nothing but entitlements and interest on the debt, you still won’t have a surplus.

The US has spent ~1.3 Trillion on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars from ~2001 till now. That’s less than 130 Billion per year. In 2010 alone, we spent 707 Billion on SS, 724 Billion on Federal Medicare / Medicaid, and 553 Billion on federal unemployment and the other entitlements. The spending on the wars is coming to an end. Obamacare spending has not yet started.

No matter who is President, the budget will never be cut by 1.3 Trillion. If by some miracle the politicians come to their senses and eliminate the 1.3 Trillion dollar deficit in one year by a combination of cuts and new taxes, the people that have their benefits cut will elect a new politician to re-instate them, and the people paying the new taxes will either make less money, or elect a new politician to eliminate them.

GDP cannot grow fast enough to erase the deficit. In the same way that high taxes cause some to decide that what’s left over in profit is not worth the effort to create, low taxes cause some to decide they don’t have to work anymore. This is one of the reasons that no matter what the tax rates, GDP adjusts so that the amount that can be taken out of it remains between 18 and 22%.

For the deficit to be eliminated by growth, spending must be frozen (never happen) and GDP would need to grow by double digits for a few decades (never happen).

So the next President, even if he is elected to a second term, will be forced to accept large cuts in defense spending which will force a reduction in overseas forces, and prevent the US from engaging in conflicts.  

Therefore, as far as the end result of his foreign policy and not because of it’s flawed philosophy, a Ron Paul presidency can’t be any worse than any other Presidency, EXCEPT FOR OBAMA’s SECOND.  

Pray to God that the other free countries in the world start spending more on their own defense and don’t fall to murderous dictators and genocidal regimes.