Ron Paul's '12 presidential bid: 'No plans'

Paul/Palin '12!

That's the ticket!

What Ron Paul said during the '08 campaign has come true - economic issues, corrupt Federal Reserve, endless wars (Afghan).

The prudent thing to do is to continue to listen to Ron Paul.

Palin? She also needs to listen!

Run, Paul, Run !! Run, Sarah, Run !!
Maybe they can convince the Whiner-In-Chief, Phil Gramm. to join them. They'll need a crack economist to help them with their math. Now, if we can just get the Whiner-In-Chief out of that public trough !! I bet he is having a hard time, leaving that trough, because his buddy, " Crash " McCain, has been crashing there, too !! Ever since " Crash " made such a dismal showing in last November's presidential election !! I hope Paul and Sarah would give Whiner Gramm another chance. He, like all of the other Republican-Libertarian-T.Baggers, needs another chance at redemption !! Even America knows that !! Let's just sentence them to only 29 years of repentance, first !! America doesn't need any more nightmares of the kind the Dynamic, draft-dodging, Duo, left behind, any time soon !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

I wonder how Ron Paul would deal with high unemployment. From the latest Gallup Poll:

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Gallup's daily measure of U.S. employment reveals that 19.9% of the U.S. workforce was underemployed during the month of January, translating to close to 30 million Americans who are working less than their desired capacity."

See http://www.gallup.com for more.

20% un- or underemployment!
Thank you, President Obama!

Earth to Paul Krugman . . .
Krugman writes:
"And the deficit came. True, more than half of this year's budget deficit is the result of the Great Recession, which has both depressed revenues and required a temporary surge in spending to contain the damage. But even when the crisis is over, the budget will remain deeply in the red, largely as a result of Bush-era tax cuts (and Bush-era unfunded wars). And the combination of an aging population and rising medical costs will, unless something is done, lead to explosive debt growth after 2020."
.
So many things are wrong with this paragraph. The reference to the "temporary surge" in spending is the first error. You can check the summary tables of the President's latest budget proposal. In 2009, fiscal outlays are estimated at $3.5 trillion. In 2010 they are $3.7 trillion. In 2011 they are $3.8 trillion. And so they go, until 2020, when they are $5.7 trillion. There's a slight dip in 2012 to $3.7 trillion, but the fact that Obama's spending never drops below 2010 levels, and drops below 2011 levels only once, gives the lie to the argument that the spending surge is "temporary."
.
Let's also be clear that an awful lot of this spending is Obama's spending, not Bush's.

http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/02/22/earth-to-paul-krugman/

Mark you failed to point out the most important issue (according to you that is). Paul is white. He doesn't seem angry though.

Jim,

Add one more lie from Krugman's paragraph: "the budget will remain deeply in the red, largely as a result of Bush-era tax cuts (and Bush-era unfunded wars)."

The tax cuts expire this year an troops are supposed to be out of Iraq and Afghanistan by the end of 2011. I wonder if Krugman blames part of the deficit on FDR for that Social Security porgram that BO inherited and part of the deficit s/b blamed on LBJ for Medicare and Medicaid.

Here's a picture that says it all

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/